Division  f G 1 
Section  .039 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS 
OF  AMERICA 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  AZTECS  AND  KINDRED  TRIBES 


SHOWING  THEIR  RELATIONSHIP  TO  THE  INDO-IRANIANS  AND 
THE  PLACE  OF  THE  NAUATL  OR  MEXICAN  IN  THE 
ARYAN  GROUP  OF  LANGUAGES 


v/  BY 

T.  S.  DENISON 


CHICAGO 

T.  S.  DENISON,  PUBLISHER 

163  RANDOLPH  ST. 


Copyright,  1908 
By  T.  S.  Denison 


DEDICATION 


Tetech  nic-poa  inin  amoxtli  in  notechicniuh,  Oliver  P. 
Kinsey,  mimatini  temachtiani,  Uei  Nemachtilocalco  (Uni- 
versity), Valparaiso,  Indiana,  United  States  of  America 
In  Tlatolicuiloani 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction 7 

Chapter  I 15 

Importance  of  Indian  languages. — Various  learned  opin- 
ions.— The  numeral  “Six.” — The  Mexican  language — Age, 
affinities,  origin. — Place  of  Mexican  in  the  Aryan  group. — 
Kinship  of  languages  shown. 

Chapter  II 22 

Methods  of  working. — Ancient  forms  — Cow — Sheep. — 
Consonantal  equivalence  and  vowel  genesis. — Meanings, 
their  importance. 

Chapter  III 26 

Roots  — General  definition. — Cow,  bite,  dog,  sweat,  elbow, 
ox. — Indra. — Analysis. 

Chapter  IV 31 

Roots. — Dictionaries. — What  is  a root? — Differentiation. — 
Different  values  of  same  root — Kul  (kar)— Chichi. — Quetz- 
alcoatl. 

Chapter  V 38 

Morphology  of  Mexican  — Compounds,  terminations,  “liz- 
tli,”  the  honorific  “tzin.”  — Postpositives  — L and  r.— 
Clipped  words. 

Chapter  VI 47 

Mexican  word-studies — Tlani,  Quechtli,  Tzontli,  Xauani, 
Ualyolcatl,  Pixquitl,  Tlacatecolotl,  Metztli.  Tezcatl  ipoca, 
Youalehecatl,  Quauh-chimalli,  Ozomatli.  Mexico. 

Chapter  VII 56 

Mexican  syntax  — The  prepositive  objective  pronoun  — 
sequence  in  sentence- — Age,  syntax  as  evidence  of,  connec- 
tives—Coalescing  pronouns  — Conjugation  — Desinences. 

Chapter  VIII 64 

The  pronoun  “tla.” — “In,”  its  use  and  history. — Gram- 
matical gender — “Animate”  and  “inanimate.” — Dialects. 

— Thought  forms  and  style. 

Chapter  IX 71 

Individuality  of  languages.  — Inflection.  — Accent  and 
rhythmic  swing. — Repute  and  disrepute  of  words. — An- 
cient versus  modern  syntax. 


5 


6 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Chapter  X 

Classification  of  languages  as  to  thought  form. — Incor- 
poration-Agglutination— Monosyllabism  — Inflection. — 
Conjugation  of  “speak”  in  five  languages. — Reflections  on 
the  probable  unity  of  human  speech. — Persistence. — Pho- 
netic changes. 

Chapter  XI 

Phonology.— General  remarks. — Vowels. — Dentals. — Gut- 
turals (the  kg-q  and  kq-s  sound  shifts). — Vocalic  conso- 
nants.— The  place  of  Mexican. — Labials. — Line  of  descent 
and  assimilation. — The  saltillo. — Accent. 

Chapter  XII 

Notation — The  five  base — Chica  ce,  6. — Ten  — The  fifteen 
base. — System  Aryan. — Hand  counting.— Antiquity. 

Chapter  XIII 

History  and  geographical  extension  of  Mexican.— Tribes — 
Ruins — Population.— Native  records  and  historians. 

Chapter  XIV 

Origin  of  the  Nauatlaca. — Evidences  of  language. — Uitzil- 
opochtli. — Oriental  affinities. — Mythology. — Pre-Colum- 
bian discoveries. 

Chapter  XV 

Origin  of  the  Nauatlaca.  — Historical  evidences  — The 
migration  — “Chichi” — The  Tlacochcalca  — Meaning  of 
Aztec. — The  Aztlan  myth  and  synonyms  of  Aztlan. 

Chapter  XVI 

Aztlan  legend  — Climate — The  “ten”  places  of  the  “mi- 
gration.”— Specific  appellations. — Culture  names. — Spell- 
ing of  names. — Geographical  and  mythological  names 
common  to  Mexico  and  Asia. 

Chapter  XVII 

Religion  and  mythology  of  the  Nahua  compared  with  that 
of  Asia. — General  remarks. — Religion  of  the  Nahua  com- 
posite.— Human  sacrifice.— Fire-worship.— The  blood  sac- 
rifice.— Izcalli,  the  resurrection. — The  unleavened  bread. — 
Winter  solstice  festival. — Rites  of  Mitbra. — The  descent 
into  hell. — Aztec  future  states.— Nudity  rites. — Immacu- 
late conception. — The  cross. — Prophecies  of  a Savior. — 
Confessional  and  absolution. — Baptism. — Births  — Mar- 
riage-Burial.— List  of  deities  common  to  America  and 
Asia. 

Chapter  XVIII 

Civilization  not  indigenous. — The  home  land. — Learning 
and  arts. — Domestic  life. — Ethics. — Economics  and  gov- 
ernment.— Cannibalism. — Nahua  disposition  and  courage. 
Influence  of  superstition  on  the  conquest. 

Index  


PAGE 

77 

91 

101 

108 

114 

123 

134 

151 

163 

183 


INTRODUCTION 

The  inertia  of  the  human  mind  is  a constant  source  of 
wonder  to  thinking  people.  Everyone  can  easily  recog- 
nize a discovery  after  it  has  been  made  and  thrust  upon 
him  by  a tour  de  force,  while  very  few  even  suspected  it 
before.  The  question:  Does  a relationship  exist  between 
the  languages  of  the  New  World  and  those  of  the  Old 
World  has  been  mooted  for  the  past  one  hundred  years. 
Professor  Yater  of  Germany  and  Dr.  Barton  of  Philadel- 
phia made  extensive  researches  in  this  direction  with  little 
or  no  success.  Even  Alexander  von  Humboldt  himself, 
had  his  attention  attracted  to  the  Mexican  word  teocalli,  a 
temple,  and  noticed  its  striking  similarity  to  “theou 
kali£,”  Greek,  “the  house  of  God.”  But,  apparently, 
Humboldt  abandoned  etymology  and  instead  tried  to 
identify  Mexican  chronological  nomenclature  with  the 
zodiac  and  calendars  of  the  various  peoples  of  Asia,  with 
indifferent  results.  Alonzo  de  Molina,  who  published  his 
great  Nauatl-Spanish  “ Vocabulario”  in  the  City  of  Mexico 
in  1555,  must  have  understood  Latin  as  well  as  he  under- 
stood Spanish.  But  he  passed  by  such  words  as  Mexican 
paid- li  and  Latin  pout- is,  without  noticing  their  similarity, 
at  least  his  Dictionary  is  silent  on  the  subject.  But  com- 
parative philology  was  unknown  in  his  day. 

Three  hundred  and  twenty  years  later  Remi  Simeon 
wrote  his  magnificent  Nauatl-French  Dictionary,  based  on 
Molina.  It  is  a monument  of  scholarship  and  would  be  a 
credit  to  any  language.  This  and  other  like  work  occu- 
pied him  twenty  years  more  or  less,  and  yet  he  contents 
himself  with  suggesting,  and  this  at  second  hand,  a com- 

7 


8 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


parison  between  the  Mexican  verb  mnti,  to  think,  and  the 
Sanskrit  man  meaning  the  same.  Other  eminent  philolo- 
gists contented  themselves  with  mere  dicta  on  the  subject 
of  the  relationship  of  the  languages  of  the  American 
Indians  to  the  languages  of  the  Old  World,  some  of  them 
to  the  effect  that  such  relationship  would  never  be  shown. 
About  17GG  there  was  published  an  essay  by  Maupertuis, 
a French  scholar,  to  the  effect  that  the  serious  study  of 
barbarous  tongues  would  result  profitably  in  adding  to  the 
stock  of  human  knowledge  and  in  extending  our  concep- 
tions of  thought  forms.  Max  Muller  expressed  himself  to 
the  same  effect,  but  for  some  reason  nobody  seriously 
undertook  the  labor.  Yes,  one  man,  Don  Vincente  Lopez, 
of  Montevideo,  did  go  about  it  seriously  and  made  some 
comparison  of  Quichua  (Peruvian)  with  the  Aryan  lan- 
guages. As  I had  never  heard  of  his  book  until  my 
own  was  well  under  way,  and  since  I have  been  unable  to 
find  a copy  of  his  work  entitled  “ Les  Races  Ary^nnes  de 
la  P6rou,”  I cannot  speak  of  its  character  more  than  I 
have  already  said. 

These  preliminary  remarks  are  not  made  with  the  pur- 
pose of  magnifying  my  own  work  or  of  disparaging  the 
work  of  my  predecessors,  but  to  illustrate  the  inertia  of 
the  human  intellect,  already  alluded  to,  and  the  difficulty 
wdth  which  mankind  is  finally  persuaded  in  a new  direction 
although  the  way  be  perfectly  obvious.  That  I engaged  in 
this  work  I owe  to  the  attack  of  a painful  and  lingering 
disease.  Furthermore,  I should  acknowledge  here  that 
everything  save  health  favored  my  work,  acquired  linguis- 
tic knowledge,  leisure,  inclination.  Beyond  all  these,  I 
began  on  precisely  the  right  language,  as  I believe.  Had 
I begun  on  Algonquin  or  Tupi  my  work  in  all  probability 
would  never  have  been  finished.  In  fact  it  is  not  yet 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


9 


complete.  Works  on  philology  can  be  finished  only  by 
printing  them. 

I did  not  undertake  this  work  with  any  preconceived 
theory.  In  fact  for  more  than  a year  I had  no  other 
motive  than  the  love  of  learning  languages  outside  the 
Aryan  group.  I was  not  looking  for  “lost  tribes”  nor 
seeking  to  restore  vanished  continents.  I belonged  to  no 
“school”  of  philology,  ethnology,  or  archaeology.  For 
me  there  were  no  dogmas  or  creeds,  no  historical  or  scien- 
tific hypotheses  of  any  sort  whatsoever,  either  to  bolster 
up  or  to  tear  down.  For  these  sins  of  omission  I pay  the 
penalty  of  being  classed  as  an  “amateur,”  but  since  this 
innocent  word  really  means  one  who  loves  his  work  I am 
willing  to  accept  it. 

I shall  undoubtedly  be  accused  of  rashness  in  suggest- 
ing daring  derivations  where  greater  scholars  have  been 
cautious.  But  this  was  not  the  place  for  hair-splitting 
discussion  of  cognates  or  vowel  genesis.  Where  others 
have  held  back  I have  boldly  entered,  not  from  temerity 
and  presumption  but  from  necessity.  He  who  would  sail 
uncharted  waters  must  take  chances.  Many  tentative 
derivations  and  hypotheses  were  found  to  be  wrong  and 
cast  aside.  It  was  nearly  three  years  and  a half  before  I 
could  positively  derive  xiuitl,  grass,  year.  I have  tried  at 
all  times  to  distinguish  clearly  between  fact  and  theory. 
Doubtless  I have  retained  some  things  as  final  which  may 
eventually  be  found  wrong.  I am  but  a pioneer  and 
others  may  improve  my  work.  But  I await  intelligent 
criticism  with  calmness  because  my  main  proposition  is 
unassailable,  and  it  is  this:  The  Mexican  language  is 
Aryan  in  vocabulary  and  in  verb  conjugation.  Its  post- 
positive system  suggests  Turanian  ( Accadian)  kinship,  but 
it  is  analogous  to  that  of  the  Indo-Iranian  dialects 


10 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


descended  from  Old  Aryan.  In  antiquity  Mexican  appears 
to  lie  between  Sanskrit  and  Greek  as  indicated  by  both 
vowels  and  consonants.  Mexican  mythology  partakes  of 
the  Aryan,  Turanian,  and  Semitic. 

I believe  that  all  the  American  languages  may  be  traced 
directly  to  the  Old  World,  though  I do  not  say  they  are 
all  Aryan.  I will  give  here  a single  word  as  an  example 
to  illustrate  more  fully  this  general  statement.  Vig, 
Sanskrit,  to  go  in,  settle;  vega,  a house;  ?;<c-arage,  Eng- 
lish, a parson’s  house;  baili-wt'c/c,  jurisdiction  of  a bailiff ; 
oilcos,  Greek,  a house;  uic,  Mexican,  ■m'c-inity,  near  to; 
huasi,  Quichua  (Peru),  a house  (from  vas)  ; oy,  oka,  Tupi, 
a house;  Natick,  neh-wie/c-it,  those  in  his  household;  wiclci- 
wami,  Algonquin,  wigwam,  an  Indian’s  house;  vic-inus, 
Latin,  a subdivision  of  a town. 

The  chief  difficulty  with  those  who  have  attempted  to 
compare  the  American  languages  and  races  with  those  of 
other  portions  of  the  earth  appears  to  me  to  consist  in  the 
restriction  of  their  field.  For  example,  an  examination  of 
the  zodiac,  however  interesting  in  itself,  could  not  prove 
conclusive.  Falb’s  “Das  Land  des  Inca”  is  a remarkable 
monument  to  patient  investigation  and  scholarship.  His 
identification  of  the  Peruvian  god  Chon  with  Vul-can  I 
believe  to  be  firmly  established,  as  are  other  things  in  his 
book,  but  his  “gottheit”  is  not  sufficient.  Mythology  at 
best  is  largely  a matter  of  speculation  and  at  times  it 
descends  merely  to  clever  guessing. 

If  the  Indians  came  from  the  Old  World  at  any  time 
within  the  last  10,000  years,  their  languages  should  retain 
sufficient  vestiges  to  indicate  the  fact.  To  go  back  to  the 
Ice  Age  is  doubtless  going  too  far.1  The  traditions  of 

l Daniel  G.  Brinton  ( American  Race ) thinks  that  America  may  have  been  peo- 
pled from  Europe  by  way  of  the  north  at  a very  early  date.  John  Fiske  ( Discovery 
of  America,  Vol.  I,  p.  4)  says:  “But  it  is  by  no  means  probable  that  their  [Indians] 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


11 


Noah’s  Deluge,  the  vague  traditions  of  strangers  cast  away 
at  sea  and  driven  by  adverse  winds  to  the  American  shore, 
the  traditions  of  strange,  bearded  men  supposed  to  be  priests 
bent  on  proselyting,  the  occasional  words  having  a resem- 
blance to  European  words  of  like  meaning,  all  these  things 
while  significant  are  not  conclusive.  The  languages  must 
be  taken  as  a whole  and  not  in  parts , nor  in  any  vague 
discussions  of  similes,  parallel  traditions,  and  doubtful 
allusions  to  events  of  a semi-historical  character.  If  two 
languages  can  be  shown  to  be  identical  in  a large  propor- 
tion of  their  roots,  say  from  30  to  40  per  cent.,  and 
identical  in  the  basic  features  of  their  syntax,  then  in  my 
opinion  their  common  origin  or  contact  is  clearly  estab- 
lished even  if  5,000  years  have  elapsed  since  their  separa- 
tion and  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  all  resemblance  in  the 
one  may  be  buried  under  bizarre  formative  syllables  and 
ancient  thought  forms,  while  in  the  other,  antique  features 
have  been  stripped  off  by  the  attrition  of  modern  life  and 
the  analytical  character  of  modern  thought. 

This  book  has  been  a development.  It  has  occupied 
nearly  five  years  with  unremitting  labor.  Groping  my 
way  at  first,  finding  myself  frequently  wrong,  and  again 

migration  occurred  within  so  short  a period  as  5,000  or  6,000  years.’’  “Is  most 
emphatically  a native  and  not  an  imported  article”  (p.  20).  "In  all  proba- 
bility he  came  from  the  Old  World  at  some  ancient  period,  whether  pre-glacial 
or  post-glacial,  when  it  was  possible  to  come  by  land”  (ibid.).  Professor  Fiske 
says  furl  her,  commenting  on  Dr.  Cyrus  Thomas’  “Aids  to  the  Study  of  the  Maya 
Codices,”  “it  is  becoming  daily  more  evident  that  the  old  notion  of  an  influence 
from  Asia  has  not  a leg  to  stand  on”  (op.  cit..  Vol.  I,  p.  132,  note)  Also,  “it 
[Mexican  culture]  was  an  outgrowth  of  peculiar  American  conditions  operating 
on  the  aboriginal  mind”  (Vol.  I,  p.  147).  I have  quoted  Fiske  at  some  length 
because  he  fairly  represents  the  attitude  of  most  late  writers  on  this  subject. 
Also  see  A.  H.  Keane,  Encyclopaedia  Brittanica , “Yucatan,”  and  “America  owes 
nothing  to  the  Old  World  after  the  Stone  Ages,”  Ethnology , p.  345.  On  the 
contrary  the  Mound  Builders  are  reckoned  as  no  more  than  barely  pre-Columbian. 
In  my  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology  I have  shown  Nauatl  to  be  Iranian  and  in 
important  respects  identical  with  Zend  as  it  was  spoken  in  Western  Asia  3.C00 
years  ago.  Truly  Prescott  spoke  well  when  he  said  the  word  “ probably  ” should 
be  conjoined  with  most  assertions  of  a historical  nature. 


12 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


unduly  elated  over  “finds”  which  proved  later  to  have 
little  or  no  value,  I received  no  aid  whatever.  Though 
I sought  advice  from  philologists,  it  was  for  various  reasons 
declined.  One  learned  “linguist,”  however,  discussing 
some  preliminary  work,  took  some  pains  to  show  that  I 
must  he  a very  ignorant  person.  His  extraordinary  con- 
clusion was  that  “not  a single  one”  of  my  derivations 
would  stand  the  test  of  scientific  analysis,  which  was  a 
little  worse  than  I could  say  of  his  criticisms,  since  some  of 
them  happened  to  be  just.  Another  philologist  speaking 
in  a semi-official  capacity  took  a shorter  cut,  he  flatly  con- 
demned without  reading  my  paper! 

Most  of  this  work  has  been  rewritten  four  times,  but 
long  experience  in  the  making  of  books  warns  me  that 
where  so  much  is  attempted  some  errors  must  inevitably 
be  found  in  spite  of  innumerable  revisions.  For  these  I 
ask  the  indulgence  of  the  public.  In  consequence  of  my 
book’s  having  thus  been  as  it  were  a growth,  a few  things 
remain  which  possibly  may  not  be  supported  by  the  whole. 
I have  indicated  them  in  every  case  by  means  of  notes  or 
by  a modifying  phrase  and  left  them  as  perhaps  not  un- 
interesting landmarks  of  my  progress. 

Some  of  my  references  are  inexact  for  the  following 
reasons.  I began  this  work  because  a lingering  illness 
incapacitated  me  from  the  active  pursuit  of  business.  My 
motive  was  solely  to  pass  time  in  the  agreeable  work  of 
studying  another  language.  My  study  of  Mexican  interested 
me  in  other  Indian  languages,  but  it  was  some  time  before 
the  idea  of  comparison  occurred  to  me.  Meantime  I had 
been  making  notes  rather  carelessly,  sometimes  omitting 
volume  and  page.  This  is  why  I occasionally  fail  in  exact 
reference  or  perhaps  give  no  reference.  But  it  is  im- 
possible for  me  to  go  back  now  and  plod  wearily  through 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


13 


a vexatious  verification  for  something  which  after  all  is 
not  of  the  first  importance.  I believe  the  ordinary 
reader  seldom  bothers  his  head  with  notes,  though  here 
many  good  things  are  found  in  the  notes.  The  philologist 
will  have  little  difficulty  in  finding  what  he  wants  without 
much  guidance  from  me. 

In  laying  down  my  pen  I confess  to  a certain  sense  of 
disappointment.  The  result  hardly  seems  commensurate 
with  the  labor.  For  a time  I hoped  that  I had  discovered 
a very  ancient  language  that  might  throw  more  light  on 
the  original  speech  of  mankind,  but  finally  it  came  to  this, 
that  I had  simply  added  another  tongue  to  the  Aryan 
group.  But  if  I have  broadened  the  geography  of  Com- 
parative Philology,  I am  satisfied. 

T.  S.  Denison 

163  Randolph  St.,  Chicago 
September  10, 19J8 


CHAPTER  I 


Importance  of  Indian  Languages — Various  Learned  Opinions — 
The  Mexican  Language,  Place  of  Mexican  in  the  Aryan 
Group — Kinship  of  Languages. 

About  the  year  1766,  Maupertuis,  a French  astron- 
omer and  mathematician,  published  a treatise  on  the 
origin  of  language.  He  emphasized  the  importance  of 
studying  the  languages  even  of  the  most  distant  and 
barbarous  tribes.  In  his  opinion  a critical  examination 
of  their  “thought-forms”  might  give  the  world  a new 
philosophy  of  language.  His  suggestions,  however,  did 
not  meet  the  approval  of  M.  Turgot,  one  of  his  contem- 
poraries, who  professed  not  to  understand  them.1  Very 
important  results  might  have  followed  a friendly  accept- 
ance of  the  suggestions  of  Maupertuis  by  philologists. 

The  white  man  has  always  considered  the  Indian  as 
belonging  to  an  inferior  race,  and  has,  in  consequence, 
been  somewhat  indifferent  to  his  language  and  his  civili- 
zation. To  a majority  of  the  white  race  the  Indian  was 
once  but  little  more  than  a wild  beast  to  be  robbed  or 
killed  at  the  pleasure  of  his  more  elevated  and  civilized 
brother.  His  language  was  popularly  supposed  to  consist 
of  a series  of  grunts  and  exclamations,  pieced  out  with 
gesticulations,  a barbarous  jargon  without  nicety  of  struc- 
ture, or  the  power  of  extended  expression  and  continuity 
of  thought.2  It  is  not  to  the  credit  of  the  American 
people  that  they  have  allowed  the  Indians  to  perish  from 

1 Henry  R.  Schoolcraft,  Indians  of  North  America , Vol.  II.— [Maupertuis 
died  1759.] 

2 For  a refutation  of  this  nonsense,  which  has  been  held  sound  by  some  very 
respectable  people,  see  Howse,  Cree  Grammar,  Preface. 

15 


16 


THE  PEIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


the  land  without  a more  discriminating  study  of  their 
languages,  customs,  and  institutions.  The  Spaniards,  in 
spite  of  their  avarice  and  cruelty,  have  done  better.  But 
they  came  in  contact  with  civilized  Indians,  and,  to  the 
shame  of  the  Castilian,  be  it  said,  he  ruthlessly  destroyed 
the  records  and  the  monuments  of  two  or  three  flourishing 
civilizations,  little  knowing  or  caring  what  he  did.  Of 
course  there  was  a political  method  in  his  madness. 

For  a long  time  the  study  of  the  Indian  and  his 
speech  languished,  but  of  later  years  much  has  been 
done.  Fortunately  it  is  not  yet  too  late  to  solve  the 
problem  of  the  origin  of  the  Red  Man  as  recorded  in 
American  languages.1  Exactly  twenty  years  ago  William 
Dwight  Whitney  of  Yale,  an  eminent  philologist,  wrote  as 
follows:  “It  ought  to  be  evident  to  everyone  accustomed 
to  deal  with  this  class  of  subjects  that  all  attempts  to 
connect  American  languages  as  a body  with  languages  of 
the  Old  World  are,  and  must  be,  fruitless;  in  fact  all 
discussions  of  the  matter  are  at  present  unscientific,  and 
are  tolerably  certain  to  continue  so,  through  all  time  to 
come.”  2 

Professor  A.  H.  Keane  says:  “Science  has  demon- 
strated beyond  all  cavil  that,  while  differing  widely  among 
themselves,  the  American  languages  not  only  betray  no 
affinity  to  other  tongues,  but  belong  to  an  absolutely 
different  order  of  speech.”  3 

A German  philologist  recently  expressed  to  me  per- 
sonally this  same  conviction  as  embodied  in  Professor 
Whitney’s  statement.  Alexander  von  Humboldt  was  of 

> The  number  of  Indian  languages  Las  been  variously  estimated:  Adelung, 
1,264;  Ludevig,  1,106;  Squier,  400.  The  American  Bureau  of  Ethnology  estimates 
the  number  of  groups  or  families  at  100. 

2 Encyclopaedia  Britannica , article  “Philology.” 

4 Encyclopaedia  Britannica , article  “Indians.” 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


17 


like  opinion  regarding  the  affinities  of  the  Indo-Enropean 
group.  Max  Muller  says:  “To  attempt  at  present  to 
trace  them  [the  American  languages]  to  a Jewish, 
Chinese,  Phoenician,  or  Celtic  source  is  simply  labor 
lost  and  outside  the  pale  of  real  science.”  1 

Professor  Theodore  Noldeke  of  the  University  of 
Strassburg  remarks:  “It  must  be  remembered  that  it  is 
only  in  exceptionally  favorable  circumstances  that  cognate 
languages  are  so  preserved  during  long  periods  as  to 
render  it  possible  for  scientific  analysis  to  prove  their 
relationship  with  one  another.” 2 I think  he  puts  the 
case  too  strongly,  and  the  isolation  of  the  American 
languages  has  furnished  exactly  the  conditions  described 
by  the  professor  as  exceptional,  but  philologists  have 
ignored  these  conditions  and  confined  themselves  to 
dogmatic  assertions  not  warranted  by  their  knowledge 
of  New  World  tongues,3  and  this  while  their  profound 
studies  of  Old  World  tongues  deserved  the  greatest  praise 
and  excited  the  admiration  of  scholars  in  all  departments 
of  learning. 

Professor  Noldeke  cites  the  numeral  six  as  an  example 
of  a deceptive  root  which  may  lead  the  incompetent  or 
rash  philologist  astray  by  its  close  resemblance  in  several 
languages  which  cross  families,  that  is,  belong  to  groups 
but  little  related  according  to  accepted  classifications. 
Thus:  Hebrew,  shesh ; Sanskrit,  shush ; Modern  Persian, 
shush.  Professor  Noldeke  says  the  Indo-European  root  is 
swelcs  or  ksweks,  while  the  Semitic  root  is  shidth,  which 
he  asserts  to  be  a wholly  different  root.  By  pure  analysis 
and  reasoning,  it  would  perhaps  be  equally  impossible  to 

l Science  of  Language,  Vol.  I,  p.  452. 

2 Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  article  “ Semitic  Languages.” 

3“  In  Tartary,  4,000  years  really  makes  no  changes  in  words,”  Joseph  Edkins, 
Congress  Orientalists , 1893,  Vol.  II,  p.  670. 


18 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


establish  his  proposition  or  to  disprove  it.  But  in  lan- 
guage, one  living,  virile  expression  or  phrase  upsets  a 
chapter  of  theory,  and  the  cases  of  absolute  identity  of 
form  in  such  comparisons  are  so  rare  as  to  cut  no  figure, 
and  would  lead  no  real  investigator  astray.  Professor 
Noldeke  might  have  added  the  Mexican  chica,  a possible 
*kiks  but  not  in  fact,  which  is  the  increment  sign  between 
five  and  ten.  Thus,  macuilli,  a “hand  grasp,”  five,  but 
six  is  chica  ce , that  is,  simply  “ plus  one,”  five  being 
understood.  Chica  is  the  Sanskrit  adhika,  plus  or  re- 
dundant, thus  ashtddhikanavati  is  literally  90  + 8. 
With  adhikanavati,  compare  Mexican  chica  naui , nine. 
But  finally,  Professor  Noldeke’s  *kswelcs  might,  I think, 
be  Semitic  shidth,  the  sibilant  descending  from  a guttural 
which  is  regular  and  common,  and  the  dentals  from 
palatal  k which  is  not  so  likely.1 

In  spite  of  all  these  opinions  from  really  learned  men 
whom  I greatly  respect,  I insist  that  analysis  and  com- 
parison are  better  than  theory.  I may  add  here  that 
stray  waifs  of  a universal  language  may  be  found  every- 
where. If  this  happened  but  a few  times  it  might  be 
attributed  to  coincidence,  but  it  continually  happens. 
(See  footnote,  p.  88,  on  Khassi.) 

The  Mexican  language. — The  old  distinctions,  Indo- 
European,  Semitic,  Turanian,  acquire  a local  significance 
when  there  is  introduced  to  the  world  a language  older 
than  Sanskrit,  and  to  all  appearances,  much  like  Zend 
of  3000  B.  c.  The  Mexican  language,  better  known  to 
philologists  as  Nauatl  (Nahuatl),  is,  in  vocabulary  pure 
Aryan.2  It  probably  had  its  origin  in  the  highlands  of 
East  Iran,  the  country  of  the  Elamites,  thus  its  primal 

1 K and  t are  interchangeable,  Grammar  of  Awabakal , by  L.  E.  Threlkeld. 

2 If  there  be  such  a thing  as  pure  Aryan.  Over  40  per  cent,  of  Greek  is 
unassignable  (Rendall).  The  same  may  be  said  of  Latin. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


19 


seat  was  the  Pamir  country,  “the  Koof  of  the  World.” 
I shall  not  go  into  the  origin  of  the  Aryans  here,  but 
proceed  directly  to  the  specific  matter  in  hand.  Mexican 
is  Aryan  in  its  verb  conjugation.  Its  pronominal  system 
resembles  Semitic  with  respect  to  the  agglutination  of 
pronouns,  the  conjugations  are  rudimentary  Aryan,  and 
the  prepositive  pronouns  suggest  Accadian  (Turanian). 
While  Mexican,  in  its  vocabulary,  is  Aryan,  some  of  its 
words  appear  to  be  found  in  Assyrian  and  some  of  its 
very  oldest  forms  may  be  Accadian,  while  there  are  others 
in  Pukhto  which  may  be  non-Aryan.  It  is  of  course 
possible  that  the  Semites  borrowed  freely  from  the  Ac- 
cadians,  who  in  turn  may  have  borrowed  from  the  con- 
quering Semites.  At  any  rate  the  two  languages  were 
both  for  a long  time  in  use  in  Babylonia  side  by  side,  as 
is  evident  from  the  numerous  bi-lingual  inscriptions. 
Very  much  yet  remains  uncertain  concerning  Accadian,  or, 
as  it  is  latterly  called,  Sumerian.1  In  fact,  so  eminent  an 
authority  as  Professor  Friedrich  Delitzscli  denied  the 
existence2  of  Accadian,  and  ventured  the  opinion  that  it 
will  prove  eventually  to  be  neither  more  nor  less  than  a 
hieratic  gloss  of  the  popular  Assyrian.  It  is  not  my 
purpose  to  engage  in  the  Sumerian  controversy,  but  when 
words  and  roots  are  found  current  today  on  the  plains  of 
Anahuac  which  were  in  use  on  the  banks  of  the  Indus  or 
the  Euphrates  3,000  years  ago,  the  question  is  pregnant 
and  becomes  one  of  patient  research.  Mexican  occupies 
an  intermediate  position  between  Sanskrit  and  Old 
Persian,  and  in  “ thought-forms  ” establishes  its  claim 
to  great  age  which  is  further  supported  by  historical 
and  mythological  references. 

iuThe  Accadians  were  the  Highlanders  of  Western  Asia  beyond  much 
doubt.” — A.  H.  Sayce,  Assyrian  Lectures , p.  17. 

2 Assyrian  Grammar , by  F.  Delitzsch,  section  25. 


20 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Place  of  Mexican  in  the  Aryan  group.  — It  will 
doubtless  be  said  at  once  that  language  is  no  final  test 
of  race  affinity.  This  is  sometimes  true,  but  I will  add 
that  language  is  almost  the  only  thing  which  priests  and 
politicians  have  never  been  able  to  affect  seriously.  The 
Mexican  language  is  so  primitive  in  vocabulary,  structure, 
and  “thought-forms,”  that  if  it  has  been  produced  by 
contact  or  the  mingling  of  races,  or  by  conquest,  the  fact 
was  accomplished  at  a very  remote  period.  Its  vowel 
system  closely  resembles  the  Avestan.  Hence  if  the 
Aztecs  were  not  Aryan  in  race  originally,  their  absorp- 
tion by  Aryans  took  place  so  long  ago  that  for  linguistic 
purposes  we  must  call  them  Aryan.  The  postpositive 
system  places  Nauatl  among  the  Pamir  dialects,  very 
primitive,  and  the  modern  Aryan  languages  of  India,  but 
the  postpositive  system  is  also  Turanian.1  I quote  here, 
as  a propos,  a description  of  the  Ainu  of  Japan.  “The 
forehead  is  narrow  and  sharply  sloped  backward;  the 
cheek  bones  are  prominent;  the  nose  is  hooked,  slightly 
flattened  and  broad,  with  wide  strong  nostrils;  the  skin 
is  light  reddish  brown;  eyes  set  straight  in  the  head; 
hair  for  most  part  black  and  wavy;  beard  dark  and 
handsome.”  The  Ainu  are  said  to  be  Aryans.2  Oust 
describes  the  Gialchas  and  the  Dardui  as  pure  Aryan 
stock  and  pre-Sanskritic.  He  thinks  the  Pamir  region 
was  the  primitive  seat  of  the  Indo-Iranians/  Why  not 
of  all  the  Aryans  (see  “Geographical  Names,”  chap,  xvi)  ? 
But  Forlong  radically  disputes  the  entire  theory  of 
Aryan  influence  in  India,  and  maintains  that  Turanians 


■For  the  formation  of  postpositives  and  agglutination,  see  Professor  E 
W.  Faye,  American  Journal  of  Philology.  Nos.  60,  61. 

2 The  Nation.  “ Notes,”  Sept.  12,  1907,  and  note.  p.  88,  infra. 

3 Robert  N.  Oust,  Modern  Languages  of  India,  p.  32. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


21 


have  predominated  in  both  language  and  civilization.1 
The  question  of  color  is  also  pertinent.  Were  there  red 
Aryans?  It  is  said  on  good  authority,  the  Vedas,  that 
the  Kshattriya,  warrior  caste,  were  red,  that  they  gave 
“the  wisdom  of  India”  to  the  white  race,  and  that 
Buddha  himself  was  a red  man.2  Their  modern  de- 
scendants are  the  Rajputs.  The  second  Aztec  “cycle” 
was  the  “Red  Age.”  “The  primitive  Aryans  were  of 
light  color,  reddish  or  brown  rather  than  black,”  says 
Mr.  Widney.3 

Kinship  of  languages. — It  is  my  purpose  to  support 
these  preliminary  statements  with  about  five  hundred 
words,  more  or  less,  in  a comparative  vocabulary,  which 
I deem  ample  to  establish  the  linguistic  unity  of  the  New 
World  with  the  Old.4  I do  not  pretend  that  the  entire 
Mexican  vocabulary  may  be  derived  from  Old  World 
languages.  Doubtless  there  are  words  indigenous  to  the 
soil  of  America,  and  per  contra , Aryan  roots  have  been 
lost  or  so  worn  that  direct  proof  of  their  origin  is  impos- 
sible and  only  analogy  establishes  their  identity.  I have 
examined  about  thirty  languages  in  pursuing  these  studies, 
but  shall  attempt  in  this  work  to  show  the  identity  of  but 
one  American  language,  Mexican  or  Nauatl,  with  the 
eastern  languages,  though  I am  convinced  that  what  I 
have  done  for  the  Mexican  may  eventually  be  done  for 
Shoshone,  Quichua,  Tupi-Gtuarani,  Maya,  Algonquin, 
Dakota,  Selish,  and  other  American  tongues. 

1 J.  G.  R.  Forlong,  Short  Studies  in  the  Science  of  Comparative  Religions , 
p.  248. 

2 Charles  Johnson,  of  the  Bengal  service  retired,  in  a Letter  to  the  Nation , 
August  20, 1908,  concerning  his  translation  of  the  Bhagavad  Oita.  Also  Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica,  Vol.  XII,  p.  782. 

3 Race  Life  of  Aryan  Peoples , Vol.  I,  p.  27. 

* Physical  infirmities  have  prevented  the  revisions  necessary  before  publish- 
ing such  a vocabulary.  But  ample  proofs  are  found  in  my  monograph  Mexican 
in  Aryan  Phonology. 


CHAPTER  II 


Method  of  Working. — Ancient  Forms  -Cow,  Sheep — Conso- 
nantal Equivalence  and  Vowel  Genesis — Meanings 

Any  explanations  of  my  method  of  research  would  be 
superfluous  in  the  case  of  the  trained  philologist,  but  as 
this  work  is  intended  for  general  use  among  educated 
people,  I may  be  excused  for  presenting  here  a few  general 
directions  for  the  guidance  of  the  reader.  First  of  all, 
let  us  remember  that  vowel  mutation  is  very  important, 
though  the  causes  of  change  are  not  so  easily  traced  as  in 
consonant  mutation  which  usually  takes  place  under  very 
definite  principles  of  change.1 

Cow. — The  Sanskrit  root  (jo  (gau)  means  cotv.  How 
small  the  change  in  5,000  years.  The  Sanskrit  g has 
advanced  to  k in  English;  the  Greek  is  bous  (bo);  the 
Latin  bos  or  vacca.  The  Mexican  for  cow  is  quaquaue 
(pronounced  ka-k&-way).  Note  here  a curious  thing. 
The  Aztecs  had  no  cows.  The  animal,  if  known  to  them, 
could  have  been  known  only  as  the  bison  (bos  bubalus), 
but  their  name  for  cow  is  doubtless  a reduplication  of  the 
Sanskrit  gau, or  ga-ga,  with  e,  a possessive  ending.  Now, 
how  did  they  manage  to  retain  this  name  for  several  thou- 
sand years  intact,  supposing  that  for  a long  time  they  were 
strangers  to  the  animal?  This  may  be  explained  if  we 
assume  a borrowed  Assyrian  root,  though  it  is  doubtful 

iln  this  connection  read  the  phonetic  mutations  in  chap,  xi,  “Phonol- 
ogy.” Vowel  mutation  takes  place  under  well-known  definite  rules  in  the  Aryan 
languages.  I ask  the  reader  who  is  not  a linguist  to  accept  my  statements  as 
authoritative.  I refer  the  philologist  to  my  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology.  Max 
Muller  says  every  vowel  in  the  languages  of  Europe  is  exactly  what  it  ought  to  be. 
If  he  means  according  to  rule  the  statement  is  too  strong. 

22 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


23 


if  such  assumption  be  sound  philology.  The  root  ka  once 
meant  any  projecting,  prominent  feature  or  object  as  a 
horn  of  a cow,  a pole  set  in  the  ground,  and  even  the 
human  hand.  The  Accadians  used  it  5,000  years  ago, 
and  the  Assyrians  much  later  in  the  same  sense.  (See 
ka  in  Norris’  Assyrian  Dictionary .)  Hence,  if  no  Aztec 
had  seen  a cow  for  thousands  of  years,  it  would  be  in 
keeping  with  the  genius  of  his  language,  to  resort  to  the 
old  name.  But  I do  not  maintain  that  this  actually  hap- 
pened, since  the  stag  was  called  mazatl  instead  of  qua- 
quciae.  In  the  Ioway  language  the  root  is  cae ; to-cae, 
bull;  cae-me,  cow  (bulfalo). 

Sheep. — I will  cite  here  curious  facts  in  the  history  of  a 
word  which  is  at  once  peculiarly  instructive  and  histo- 
rically interesting.  Under  the  article  “Mexico”  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  the  author  (E.  B.  Tylor),  dis- 
cussing the  ancient  Aztecs,  eulogizes  their  piety  as  exhib- 
ited in  a prayer  which  he  quotes.  The  worshiper  calls  the 
attention  of  his  god,  Tezcatlipoca,  to  his  having  sacrificed 
a sheep  to  the  deity.  The  author  concludes  that  the 
prayer  had  been  tinged  by  Spanish  influences  because  no 
such  animal  as  the  sheep  was  known  to  the  ancient  Mex- 
icans. Ichcatl,  sheep,  is  chaga,  goat,  in  Sanskrit;  skeap, 
sheep,  is  Anglo-Saxon;  schcif,  German.  The  phonetic 
changes  here  are:  root  is  *skag,  Mexican  *i-skag  = ich- 
cac-tl.1  The  final  c is  dropped  giving  ichcatl.  In  Ger- 
manic final  c becomes  p,  hence  skeap.  The  prosthetic  i is 
common  in  Zend  and  Iranian  generally.  Such  vowels 
have  been  termed  “irrational.”  The  only  puzzling  ques- 
tion is,  why  did  the  transfer  of  meaning  take  place  from 
sheep  to  goat.  Perhaps  it  was  the  Aryans  of  Asia  who 
made  the  transfer  to  goat.  At  any  rate  the  Mexicans 


1 An  asterisk  preceding  a word  indicates  a restored  or  hypothetical  form. 


24 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


appear  to  have  had  a word  for  sheep  always,  and  in  the 
prayer  alluded  to,  a wild  sheep  may  have  been  meant, 
though  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  the  prayer  may 
have  been  altered  by  Spanish  hands.1 

Remember,  too,  that  the  termination  tl  cuts  no  figure 
in  the  solution.  I may  add  that  there  is  another  deriva- 
tion for  ichcatl,  which  also  means  cotton ; Mr.  Tylor 
derives  it  from  ichtli,  thread,  and  sheep  is  “thread  thing,” 
which  is  phonetically  impossible,  as  shown  by  the  cognate 
tc-patl,  thread,  where  the  soft  ch  reverts  to  hard  c,  but 
ich- tli  may  be  the  same  as  Sanskrit  ish- u,  a string.2 

Consonantal  affinity  and  vowel  genesis. — The  equiva- 
lence of  consonants  is  perhaps  at  once  the  plainest  and 
safest  guide  in  making  comparisons.  To  stray  from  this 
fixed  principle  is  to  err.  There  are  some  very  strange 
exceptions,  however,  and  the  most  notable  perhaps  of  all 
is  that  by  which  an  original  g-k  becomes  t in  one  lan- 
guage and  v,  p,  or  f in  another.  For  example,  Sanskrit, 
eatur,  four;  Greek,  t§ttares;  Welsh,  pedwar.  But  vowel 
mutation  is  also  exigent  and  must  not  be  disregarded. 
But  this  subject  is  fully  discussed  in  chap,  xi,  “Phonology.” 

Meanings. — Meaning  is  fully  as  important  for  pur- 
poses of  derivation  as  the  proper  genesis  of  letters,  pos- 
sibly it  is  even  more  important  sometimes.  The  only 
thing  absolutely  immortal  is  thought,  and  words  are  the 


1 Encyclopaedia  Brittanica , article  “Mexico.”  In  fact  the  bones  of  Ovis 
Canadensis  have  been  found  in  Arizona  ruins ; Smithsonian  Report , 1900-1,  p.  27. 

2 In  this  book  I shall  constantly  refer  to  the  Sanskrit.  A reference  to  that 
language  takes  precedence  over  all  others.  But  let  it  be  understood  once  for  all 
that  I am  not  deriving  Mexican  words  from  the  Sanskrit  directly.  The  Sanskrit 
possibly  possesses  the  most  ancient  literature  to  which  we  have  access ; at  any 
rate,  it  is  very  near  the  Mexican,  and  for  that  reason,  takes  precedence.  If  the 
reader  neglects  this  cautkm,  he  may  at  times  misconstrue  my  meaning.  The  same 
caution  applies  to  all  other  languages.  For  example,  should  I associate,  petla, 
to  peddle,  with  English  peddle,  I mean  simply  that  both  may  come  from  a com- 
mon pre-literary  root,  the  connection  to  be  proved  by  cognates  or  otherwise. 


THE  PBIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


25 


long-enduring,  almost  indestructible  symbols  of  thought. 
When  one  looks  into  a Sanskrit  dictionary  and  finds  that 
lubh,  4,000  years  ago,  meant  love,  as  it  does  today,  that 
bhcir  meant  bear,  and  gau  meant  cow,  it  is  a matter  of  sur- 
prise that  mere  words  may  be  imperishable.  It  is  in  fact 
almost  certain  that  when  the  meanings  of  two  words 
identical  in  form  differ  radically  that  they  are  in  no  way 
related. 

Even  slang  may  teach  us  concerning  language.  The 
persistence  of  “thought-forms”  is  simply  marvelous,  and 
when  words  perish  the  same  idea-mold  will  receive  new 
words  and  the  idiom  appears  to  live  forever.  I remember 
having  heard  as  a boy,  among  my  native  hills,  the  common 
expression  “old  rip,”  used.  I looked  upon  it  as  simply  slang. 
I cannot  prove  descent  but  I believe  in  it.  The  expres- 
sion cast  a mild  sort  of  obloquy  upon  one  not  deemed  bad 
enough  to  be  designated  as  an  out  and  out  rogue.  The 
Sanskrit  root-word  rip  and  its  affiliated  root  Up  mean  cheat. 
Hence,  to  call  a person  a “rip”  is  really  to  call  him  a 
cheat  and  “give  me  none  of  your  lip”  is  doubtless  near 
akin  to  it,  though  appearing  to  have  a very  different 
origin. 

There  is  a deviation  of  meaning,  however,  which  is 
allowable  arising  from  figures  of  speech,  where  simile, 
metonomy,  synecdoche,  cause  transfer  meanings  like 
sheep  to  goat,  sister  to  daughter,  or  extensions  like  house 
to  family  and  vice  versa,  but  leave  no  doubt  of  the  original 
signification,  but  even  here,  the  careful  philologist  rejects 
all  that  appears  doubtful. 


CHAPTER  III 

Roots. — Cow,  Bite,  Dog,  Sweat,  Elbow,  Ox,  India — Analysis. 

Roots  are  the  basis  of  philological  research.  Roots 
originally  may  have  consisted  of  but  two  letters  or  even  of 
but  one.  In  Tupi,  words  frequently  consist  of  a vowel, 
and  e,  for  example,  has  nearly  a score  of  meanings,  which 
are  differentiated  by  prefixes  and  affixes,  and  i is  a root,  to 
go,  in  Sanskrit.  In  Chinese  many  words  appear  to  con- 
sist of  but  two  letters,  a consonant  and  a vowel;  in  fact 
some  claim  this  to  be  a rule  of  Chinese.  A compound 
consonant  like  ch  or  ts  is  counted  as  a single  consonant. 
The  most  common  form  of  Aryan  roots  appears  to  be: 
consonant  + vowel  + consonant,  as  vat,  to  know,  reveal. 
But  vane,  totter,  while  appearing  to  be  exception,  is 
really  a tri-literal  root  strengthened  by  n.  The  n does 
not  appear  in  Latin  where  we  have  uac-illare,  totter,  Eng- 
lish mc-illate.  Bear  in  mind  this  strengthening  which 
occurs  frequently  in  Sanskrit  and  Greek.  This  will 
explain  the  frequent  disappearance  of  n in  comparisons 
between  Mexican  and  Sanskrit  words.  Thus  man,  to  think, 
becomes  ma-ti  in  Mexican,  but  retains  the  n in  the  Eng- 
lish word  mind.  Tupi  roots,  like  e,  may  simply  have  lost 
their  consonants.  Sometimes  what  appears  to  be  a simple 
root  is  really  a compound  or  extension  as  Sanskrit  yudh, 
to  fight  which  = yu  -f  dhej  Mexican,  yao-chiua. 

Cow. — Very  few  words  may  be  traced  back  wholly 
unmodified  for  any  great  period  of  time,  but  roots  are  of 
great  antiquity.  I have  already  mentioned  the  word  gau, 
coio,  as  an  example  from  the  Sanskrit.  But  the  Greeks 

26 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


27 


employed  boil-s  (bos).  Why  was  this?  Bou  may  be 
derived  from  gau  by  means  of  an  intermediate  parasitic  v 
(gva),  but  bou  may  also  have  been  an  original  root.  In 
nyl-gau  we  have  the  root  in  a compound,  “blue-cow.” 

Bite. — The  investigator  does  not  always  find  his  work 
so  easy,  aa  in  the  examples  named,  which  are  simple. 
Often  but  a small  portion  of  a root  can  be  traced  in  a 
word,  or  the  whole  is  so  transformed  as  to  be  unrecogniz- 
able. Sometimes  only  a single  letter  remains,  and  some 
obscure  dialect  proves  the  original.  For  example,  German 
beissen,  to  bite,  is  in  Mexican  ouit- ic,  bad,  unfortunate, 
English,  bitten;  Sanskrit,  bind. 

This  was  my  first  derivation,  but  I find  that  Forlong 
derives  a word  from  an  old  root  which  appears  to  be 
pre-Aryan,  bdd,  bud,  bhud,  Tibetan  bo  and  Chinese  fo.  He 
connects  it  with  Sanskrit  bhuta,  from  bhu,  to  be,  exist, 
hence  a created  being  and  specifically  an  evil  sj)irit,  our 
English  bogy.  The  word  was  Turanian  and  is  the  Russian 
Bog,  god,  Iranian  Baga.  He  does  not  explain  the  intrusion 
of  the  guttural  g.  In  Mexican  b becomes  u,  hence  ouitic 
bad,  oui,  dangerous,  are  more  probably  derived  from  bhu 
than  from  bhid.  This  root  is  wholly  distinct  from 
Buddha  the  name  of  the  Sage.1  (See  p.  152.) 

Dog. — The  names  cow,  sheep,  dog,  are  naturally  among 
the  oldest  in  any  language  and  dog  is  especially  ancient. 
In  all  probability,  the  dog  was  a companion  of  man  at  the 
very  beginning  of  civilization.  He  was  even  a “sacred” 
animal.  The  oldest  extant  words  for  dog  are  formed  round 
a A'-stem.  The  Sanskrit  name  is  gvcm  (?  = k or  sk) ; the 
Greek,  kvcov-,  the  Latin,  canis;  the  German,  hund;  the 
English  is  specialized  in  hound.  By  reference  to  the 

iCf.  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology,  p.  15,  and  Forlong,  Short  Studies  in  the 
Science  of  Comparative  Religions,  pp.  234  ff. 


28 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


chapter  “Phonology,  gutturals,  eastern  and  western,”  it 
may  be  seen  that  Sanskrit  k becomes  h in  Germanic 
tongues.  This  leaves  the  English  word  dog  out  of  the  dis- 
cussion, which  will  be  confined  to  the  original  word  with  a 
k- stem.  The  Mexicans  have  two  words  for  dog,  chichi  and 
itzcuintli  or  izcuintli.  The  latter  is  the  usual  Aryan  word, 
but  in  Panjabi  we  find  kutta.  The  compound  consonant  tz 
stands  for  an  earlier  s and  the  i is  only  a prosthetic  glide 
very  common  in  Zend,  Old  Persian,  and  Mexican;1  tli  is 
the  termination  which  may  always  be  ignored.  Hence  the 
original  root  may  in  prehistoric  times  have  been  slcun 
instead  of  kun.2  The  Sanskrit  f has  a unique  value. 
Derived  from  an  original  k,  this  sound  remains  k in  some 
tongues  and  becomes  s or  sh  in  others. 

My  object  here  is  twofold:  first,  to  bring  my  methods 
of  working,  in  a few  examples,  so  clearly  before  the  reader 
that  he  may  learn  to  distinguish  disguised  forms ; second, 
to  establish  the  fact  that  these  words  of  extreme  antiquity 
clearly  show  the  Mexican  to  be  in  accord  with  other  Indo- 
European  tongues,  or  more  explicitly  an  Aryan  tongue. 

Sweat. — On  the  authority  of  competent  scholars,  the 
statement  is  made  that  all  the  Aryan  peoples  have  the 
common  word  siveat,  which  might  indicate  that  the  race 
originated  in  a warm  climate.  The  Sanskrit  root  is  svid, 
Greek,  180?  *api'8o<;,  Latin,  sudor,  and,  curiously  enough, 
these  American  Aryans  of  Mexico  have  the  verb  itonia,  to 
sweat.  If  we  concede  the  decay  of  an  introductory  sv, 
then  they  would  be  in  accord  with  the  Old  World  mem- 
bers of  the  family  in  * svid-onia.  This  is  analogous  to 
t'So?  *afi8o<;,  but  the  root  is  probably  tons. 

1 See  “ irrational  vowels,”  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology , p.  11. 

2 Later  I find  that  the  Snake  dialect  of  Shdshone  actually  has  what  may 
have  been  an  sk-form  in  sharay , dog,  and  in  Clallam,  a Puget  Sound  dialect,  dog 
is  sfca-ha.  Compare  skye- terrier.  “Clallam  differs  materially  from  the  other 
Puget  Sound  Selish  tongues”  (Gibbs). 


THE  PKIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


29 


Elbow. — Two  or  more  roots  may  be  used  as  the  base 
of  a vocable,  verb  or  noun.  In  Sanskrit  and  Mexican 
bare  roots  may  be  joined  into  compound  words.  The 
Mexican  name  for  elbow  is  molictli  or  molicpitl.  Mol- 
ictli  = mol+ic-j-tl.  Mol  is  the  Aryan  root  mr  in  Sanskrit, 
to  crush ; Latin,  mol-a ; Greek,  yv^-y,  a mill ; Anglo-Saxon, 
meal,  and  mol-de,  crushed  earth.  This  root  also  meant 
“mill”  in  the  sense  of  a fight  as  it  does  today.  The  root 
inkh  (ik)  means  to  move  unsteadily  (back  and  forth)  in 
Sanskrit.  Omitting  n and  h as  explained,  pp.  26,  97,  we 
have  Mexican  ic,  and  molictli  is  “the  mill  mover,”  in  allu- 
sion to  the  movements,  of  the  elbow  in  grinding  on  the 
ancient  hand  mill.  Pill,  may  be  derived  from  pid,  to 
press  upon,  or  possibly  from  pis  which  in  itself  means,  to 
grind,  crush,  mill.  Molictli  may  also  be  derived,  per- 
haps more  directly,  from  Avestan  meregh,  rub,  wipe. 
Finally,  as  an  “extended”  root,  molic-tli  may  be  derived 
from  mrj,  to  rub,  to  milk.  These  ideas  are  all  closely 
akin. 

Ox. — The  word  ox  originally  meant  bull,  from  Sanskrit 
uks  or  vaks,  “the  sprinkler.”  A secondary  form  was  uj 
or  ug,  to  wet,  from  which  we  get  the  word  hygrometer,  an 
instrument  to  measure  humidity;  Latin,  uvens,  *ugvens 
coelum,  the  dripping  sky;  Gothic,  auhsa,  a bull,  hence 
English,  ox ; German,  ochse.  The  old  Aryans  also  em- 
ployed this  word  as  embodying  the  idea  of  virility,  power. 
The  Mexican  is  oquichtli,  male.  It  will  be  remarked  that 
this  latter  word  expands  the  root  into  two  syllables,  oq-ich 
(okish) , instead  of  the  Sanskrit  uks,  and  a similar  strength- 
ening of  roots  also  occurs  in  Zend.1  Oquichtli  in  Mexican 
is  the  sign  of  the  male  gender  as:  oquich- mazatl,  a buck; 
cihua-mazatl,  a doe. 

1 See  Tolman,  Old  Persian  Inscriptions. 


30 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Indra,  the  name  of  a Vedic  god,  has  never  been  satis- 
factorily derived.  I offer  the  following  solution.  The 
Mexican  particle  in  has  practically  the  force  of  the 
article  the.  It  is  always  independent  or  detachable  in 
Mexican  and  had  the  same  use  in  Old  Persian.1  Hence 
Indra  may  be  analyzed:  in-\-dra,  “thedra.”  It  remains 
to  find  the  special  meaning  of  dra  which  does  not  concern 
us  here.  The  Mexican  god  Tlaloc  is  certainly  Indra, 
since  in  Sanskrit  Indralokd  means  Indra’s  place,  that  is, 
heaven.  Tlaloc  is  plainly  [in-]“tla-lok,”  god  of  the  Ter- 
restrial Paradise,  the  giver  of  rain,  so  was  Indra,  and 
patron  of  farmers.  Tlaloc  is  no  doubt  a transfer  meaning 
from  place  to  lord  of  the  place.  Tlaloc  was  the  only 
Mexican  god  who  had  a court ; the  instrument  of  his  ven- 
geance was  the  thunderbolt — all  of  which  suggests  Indra.2 

Analysis. — It  is  sometimes  not  easy  to  determine  the 
root  in  long  compound  words  such  as  occur  in  most  Indian 
languages.  For  example  notlazocniuhtze  means  “my  be- 
loved and  honored  friend,”  of  which  no  is  the  pronoun  my ; 
tlazo  is  clipped  from  tlazotla,  love;  icniuhtli,  friend,  be- 
comes, by  elision  of  i and  clipping  off  the  termination  tli, 
simply  the  mutilated  fragment  cniuh ; tzin,  honorable,  is 
reduced  to  tz  which  combines  with  e,  the  sign  of  the  voca- 
tive case.  Temachtiani,  a teacher,  is  resolved  into  te,  some 
one,  mati,  to  think,  which  becomes  machti  in  the  dative 
form,  and  ani,  a termination  meaning  “one  who”  (does). 

1 See  the  phrase  “ in  Swindle,”  p.  66. 

2 The  eight  Tlalocs  were  beyond  doubt  the  Vedic  eight  lokapalA  “world 
protectors.” 


CHAPTER  IY 


Dictionaries —What  Is  a Root?  — Differentiation  — Different 

Values  of  Same  Root: — “Kul,”  “Chichi,”  “Quetzalcoatl.” 

To  accomplish  anything  positive  and  definitive,  philol- 
ogy should,  to  use  a mining-phrase,  reach  bed-rock. 
That  is  in  many  cases  manifestly  impossible.  But  philol- 
ogy must  dare  or  else  forever  remain  a stationary  science. 
Far  be  it  from  me  to  say  aught  in  criticism  of  the  illus- 
trious linguists  who  have  gone  before  me  and  whose  ripe 
scholarship  in  many  cases  far  exceeds  any  acquirements 
of  mine.  I would  not  pluck  a single  leaf  from  their  laurels. 
They  laid  the  foundations  for  greater  work,  and  it  is  for 
the  future  to  utilize  their  labors,  without  which  nothing 
could  be  done.  It  were  invidious  to  select  any  particular 
names  for  mention  from  out  this  army  of  patient,  persever- 
ing men  who  have  prepared  grammars  and  dictionaries  of 
nearly  all  the  known  languages  of  the  world,  if  not  all  of 
them  in  fact.  The  patient  student  who  has  at  hand  a 
magnificent  library  and  behind  him  the  prestige  of  a great 
university  may,  and  often  does  erect  a monument  to 
scholarship.  But  he  could  accomplish  nothing  if  he  had 
not  ready  at  hand  the  results  of  the  pioneer’s  work,  crude 
as  it  often  is.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  philology  owes  more 
to  religion  and  the  Christian  missionaries,  from  the 
learned  Jesuit  father  to  the  humblest  preacher,  than  to  all 
other  causes  put  together,  but  one  thing  is  to  be  greatly 
regretted.  The  natural  bias  of  the  minds  of  these  men 
and  the  oneness  of  the  trend  of  their  thoughts,  diverted 
them  from  anything  like  applied  science  in  the  study  of 

31 


32 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


languages.  They  set  down  faithfully  what  they  heard  and 
saw,  but  they  seldom  illuminated  it  by  a spark  of  reflec- 
tion. 

Our  dictionaries  are  good,  and  constantly  growing 
better,  but  what  the  world  needs  now  is  a great  comparative 
dictionary,  which  shall  include  every  word  (of  common 
use)  in  not  less  than  twenty-five  of  the  principal  repre- 
sentative languages.  No  pretentious  dictionary  of  the 
future  should  content  itself  with  repeating  parrot-like 
merely  the  Romance,  Germanic,  Sanskritic,  and  classic 
equivalents.  They  are  so  similar  in  form,  in  many  cases, 
that  their  repetition  is  not  worth  the  space  consumed. 
French  or  Italian  would  answer  for  all  Romance,  and  Ger- 
man for  all  northern  languages,  resorting  to  other  dialects 
only  for  words  not  found  in  these.  Roots  should  be  given 
for  common  words  in  all  these  representative  languages. 
The  space  wasted  in  superfluous  detail  under  the  present 
system  would  accommodate  the  full  derivations  for  say 
3,000  common  words,  a sufficiency  for  all  practical  pur- 
poses ; a number  which  in  fact  would  cover  the  whole  field. 
Such  a dictionary  would  enable  the  comparative  philologist 
to  take  up  his  work  without  the  endless  and  onerous  work 
of  collecting  materials. 

What  is  a root?  But  firstly,  accurate  scholarship  must 
determine  the  roots  of  the  world's  languages  as  carefully 
as  it  has  been  done  for  the  Aryan  tongues.  This  will 
involve  an  enormous  amount  of  careful  research  and  patient 
labor.  In  fact  we  may  not  hope  ever  to  be  sure  of  all  or 
even  a moiety  of  the  roots  in  primitive  human  speech. 
Language  was  at  first  doubtless  a formless  sort  of  thing, 
which  perhaps  may  be  compared  to  the  jelly  fish  in  the 
animal  kingdom.  In  these  remarks  I have  in  mind  only 
definite,  formed  human  speech  however  crude  it  may  have 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


33 


been,  language  with  a considerable  vocabulary  and 
“thought-forms”  of  definite  mold,  sufficient  to  differ- 
entiate its  vocables  and  prescribe  its  syntax.  Eminent 
philologists  hold  to  the  opinion  that  a few  hundred  mono- 
syllabic roots  would  adequately  include  the  primitive 
tongue,  admitting  for  the  sake  of  argument  the  unity  of 
mankind.’ 

When  is  a vocable  proved  to  be  a root  from  the  common 
or  mother  tongue  ? When  you  can  show  identity  or  adduce 
collateral  evidence  from  several  languages  widely  separated 
in  time  and  geographical  distribution,  it  is  safe  to  say 
that  you  have  found  such  a root.  If  such  proofs  are 
lacking,  the  supposed  root  may  be  local.  It  is  true  there 
is  much  borrowing  done  between  languages.  But  the 
Arab,  for  instance,  has  not  had  any  opportunity  to  borrow 
from  the  Eskimo,  not  for  some  thousands  of  years  at 
least.  An  identical  root  (phonetic  changes  considered) 
with  practically  the  same  meaning  in  both  these  languages 
would  constitute  presumptive  evidence  of  its  common 
origin.  Such  a work  as  I have  described  could  be  pre- 
pared only  under  the  patronage  of  some  great  institution 
with  sufficient  stability  and  resources  to  carry  it  through 
to  a finish.  The  results  would  surely  justify  the  expen- 
diture of  time  and  money. 

It  is  also  true  that  two  primitive  peoples  may  occasion- 
ally have  independently  hit  on  the  same  word  for  the  same 
thing.  “ Kaw-kaw”  might  mean  crow  anywhere.  Hence 
might  spring  a root,  caw , to  croak,  to  chatter,  to  mock, 
etc.  This  would  be  true  of  the  small  class  of  imitative  or 
onomatopoetic  words  such  as  cacalin,  a crow.  The  Mexican, 
chichi  uaualoa,  the  dog  barks,  furnishes  a fine  example. 
Compare  ha-ha , to  laugh,  perhaps  once  a guttural,  kha- 

1 Max  Miiller,  “ Rede  Lecture,”  Chips  from  a German  Workshop. 


34 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


kha,  with  Sanskrit  jask,  to  laugh,  Mexican,  uetzca, 
*ghatska,  Latin,  cac-c/u'-nare. 

Max  Muller  roughly  estimates  the  number  of  original 
roots  at  500.  But  some  philologists  discard  entirely  the 
idea  of  primitive  roots.  Professor  Keane  says:  “Roots 
must  be  relegated  to  the  ante-Cosmos.”1  I cannot  agree 
with  him.  Throughout  the  vast  Aryan  territory,  from  the 
Indus  to  Anahuac,  we  can,  no  matter  under  what  guise 
or  what  dress  of  formative  syllables,  always  trace  a phonetic 
unit  and  that  unit  we  call  a root.  Professor  A.  H.  Sayce 
is  of  the  opinion  that  the  sentence  is  the  unit  in  human 
speech.  In  a qualified  sense,  and  applied  to  languages 
already  developed,  this  may  be  true.  It  seems  obvious 
that  it  could  not  have  been  true  of  the  first  crude  begin- 
nings of  articulate  speech,  unless  we  consider  exclama- 
tions, such  as  hark,  to  be  complete  sentences. 

Differentiation  of  roots. — There  must  have  been  some 
confusion  and  overlapping  of  meanings  in  the  primitive 
days  when  monosyllabic  roots  reinforced  by  signs  and 
gestures  constituted  language.  New  meanings  were 
needed  and  new  vocables  were  necessary  to  piece  out 
the  limited  capacity  of  existing  roots.  As  we  have  seen, 
particles  like  er,  ly,  ty , were  tacked  on,  while  n became 
an  infix,  thus  constituting  words.2  Finally,  long,  clumsy 
compounds  were  formed  which  embodied  in  themselves 
whole  phrases  or  sentences  like  the  Sanskrit:  sakala- 
nitigastratattva  jna,  all  - behavior  - books  - essence  - knowing. 
Such  phrases  constituted  adjectives  or  adverbs.  In 
Quichua  they  are  as  formidable  as  in  Sanskrit.  Modern 

1 A.  H.  Keane,  Ethnology , p.  207  if. 

2 Some  philologists  insist  that  in  comparison  both  root  and  termination 
must  rigidly  agree.  But  this  is  straining  a point.  I think  for  practical  pur- 
poses the  terminations  may  be  disregarded,  as  a rule.  For  example:  * vu>v, 
Greek;  cau-is,  *kvanis,  Latin  ; hun-d,  German;  itzcuin-tli,  Mexican. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


35 


syntax  reconstructs  such  clumsy  locutions  into  subor- 
dinate clauses. 

The  American  languages  are  celebrated  for  long  words 
consisting  of  anywhere  from  ten  to  twenty  syllables.  Nor 
are  they  an  awkward  jumble  thrown  together  clumsily. 
They  are  dovetailed  with  nicety  as  a rule,  though  Mexi- 
can is  at  times  a little  cumbersome.  They  are  built  up 
from  roots  or  words  with  precision  and  capable  of  a 
meaning  at  once  extended  but  direct  and  pointed.  But 
let  us  not  be  deceived  by  the  amazing  words  constructed 
by  missionaries  and  traders  for  the  delectation  and  ad- 
miration of  the  unsophisticated.  Wonderful  things  may 
be  done  in  that  way  in  German  and  modern  Greek,  and 
nothing  could  be  much  worse  than  some  of  our  English 
words.1  Indef&tigably  is  a pregnant  example,  a cacoph- 
onous word  with  a broken  back,  and  its  primary  accent 
four  syllables  from  the  end.  It  is  simply  barbarous. 
The  following  word  is  given  as  a sample  of  one  of  the 
very  longest  words  in  the  Mexican  vocabulary,  tzonte- 
quilicatlatquicaualtia.  Translated  in  the  same  order  as 
the  original  it  is  “ judgment- [give] -and-goods-restore- 
do.”  “Give”  has  been  inserted;  it  is  not  necessary  in 
the  Mexican.  The  whole  means  to  render  judgment  for 
return  of  goods  in  an  action  in  trover.  O-an-quin- 
tlaecoltia  is  a complete  sentence,  “you  them  have  obeyed.” 
But  Mexican  can  be  simple.  Compare  etl  with  English 
bean,  and  calpodi,  tribe,  with  cosmopolitan,  its  cognate. 

Different  values  of  the  same  root. — Any  inquiry  into 
the  exact  form  of  the  most  primitive  roots  of  articulate 

1 The  following  clipping  exactly  illustrates  the  case:  “A  young  German 
matron  once  said:  ‘Ach,  how  glad  I am  that  my  dear  Fritz  has  been  appointed 
Hauptkassenverwaltungsassistent ’—assistant  cashier.  ‘Now,’  she  went  on,  ‘ in 
my  title  of  Hauptkassenverwaltungsassistentin  I boast  five  letters  more  than 
that  proud  Oberhofsteueramtsinspectorin’  — excise  inspector’s  wife  — ‘can 
claim.’  ” — Philadelphia  Press. 


36 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


speech  would  under  the  most  competent  hand  be  perhaps 
futile  and  mere  speculation.  For  the  sake  of  illustration 
assuming  forms  so  elementary  as  lea,  ale,  ba,  ab,  pil,  apil, 
leo,  Icon,  pa,  pat,  at,  ap,  mac,  map,  there  is  under  the  law 
of  permutations,  room  for  almost  numberless  changes  of 
form  as  these  bits  of  speech  are  tossed  on  the  restless  sea 
of  human  thought.  The  wonder  is,  that  anything  has 
been  definitely  fixed.  It  is  to  be  kept  in  mind  that 
language  is  purely  arbitrary.  There  are  many  anomalies 
which  defy  logic  and  elude  analysis.  The  Sanskrit 
demonstrative  sas  might  become  sa,  euphonically,  so; 
Greek,  6,  rj ; Mexican  ce,  one  ? In  the  oblique  cases  the 
word  assumed  a t-form,  as  tarn,  tat,  English  that.  The 
German  lenabe,  boy,  may  once  have  been  lcenabe;  clan, 
*kelan,  from  the  Irish  and  Gaelic  claim,  appears  to  be 
at  home  in  English  as  a terse,  expressive  root.  I say  it 
appears  to  be  for  the  following  reasons. 

Kid. — The  old  Aryan  invaders  of  India  clung  to- 
gether closely,  probably  for  three  reasons,  family  pride, 
patriotism,  and  self-defense,  since  they  were  hated  con- 
querors in  the  midst  of  a partially  subdued  alien  race. 
In  Sanskrit  lcula  meant  swarm,  family,  kin,  tribe.  The 
Mexican  says  “incal  in  no-coZ-huan,”  the  house  of  my 
ancestors,  literally,  “my  ancestors,  their  house.”  The 
Scotchman  is  very  clannish,  even  yet.  When  an  indi- 
vidual of  the  genus  “ sport  ” meets  a chum  he  may 
greet  him  as  “cully,”  and  the  other  may  in  return 
greet  his  friend  with  the  doubtful  word  “ pal.”  Step  by 
step  these  once  honorable  words  have  reached  lower 
depths.  The  Scotch  clan,  *kelan,  was  almost  certainly 
once  leulan,  identical  with  Sanskrit,  lcula;  Sioux,  kola; 
Mexican,  colli;  Panjabi,  kul,  family;  Quichua,  holla.  The 
Mexican  is  used  only  in  compounds,  but  is  the  same  root, 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


37 


no  matter  who  may  have  originated  the  word.  The 
vowel  u (o)  is  an  objection  to  this  derivation  but  it  is 
not  insurmountable. 

Chichi  is  a dog  in  Mexican,  it  is  also  defined  as  “one 
who  sucks;”  chimalli  is  a shield,  qiwuh-chimalli  is  a 
monkey,  chimal- ti-tlan  is  “the  place  where  prayer  sticks 
were  set  up.”  Here  are  apparently  three  radically  dif- 
ferent meanings  attached  to  the  root  chi.  Sanskrit,  dhi, 
means  to  suckle;  it  also  means  piety,  mind  “set”  on 
religion;  dhr,  chi,  means  brave,  strong.  Originally  dhi, 
dhd,  meant  to  put.  Hence  we  get  these  derived  meanings, 
but  chi  from  dhr  would  be  a homonym 

Quetzal-coatl. — The  Sanskrit,  gubh,  means  (1)  to  be 
beautiful,  (2)  to  have  a gliding  motion.  It  would  seem 
at  first  sight  impossible  to  reconcile  these  meanings,  but 
Mexican  usage  renders  it  easier.  Coatl  in  Mexican  is 
serpent,  and  Quetzal-coatl,  plumed  serpent ; “ The  Fair 
God,”  gliding  through  the  air  with  his  streaming  plumes, 
fulfils  both  meanings.2 

1 See  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology , p.  11,  sec.  5.  Also  Quanh-chimalli, 
below,  p.  52. 

2 Coatl  = *{ub-a.-tl , serpent.  Compare  with  coa-tl,  the  Babylonian  Hoa  or  Koa 
whom  George  Rawlinson  believed  to  be  the  serpent  of  Eden. 


CHAPTER  V 


Morphology  of  Mexican. — Compounds — Terminations — “Tzin” 
— Postpositions — L and  R — Loss  of  Terminations. 

Compounds. — Languages  vary  much  in  their  methods 
of  compounding  words.  English  has  gone  to  the  utmost 
extreme  of  simplicity  and  merely  runs  two  words  together 
without  any  change  whatever,  as  house-keeper,  black- 
thorn, honey-comb;  the  same  occurs  in  Sanskrit  and 
Mexican,  as  Sanskrit,  amitrasena,  army  of  enemies ; Mexi- 
can, cuen-chiua,  “wound-put,”  or  slay.  In  such  cases 
the  subsidiary  element  is  merely  an  adjective  or  perhaps 
an  objective  as  in  the  last.  In  Mexican,  one  of  the  words 
is  nearly  always  clipped.  For  example,  colli  is  house; 
the  possessive  pronouns  are:  no,  my;  mo,  thy;  i,  his  or 
hers.  Hence  nocal,  my  house;  mocal,  thy  house;  ical, 
his  house;  teotl,  god;  teocalli,  a temple;  atl,  water;  acal, 
a boat;  teachcauhtli,  a leader;  acalcoteachcauh,  a ship 
captain,  literally  “ship-in-leader.”  Ciuatl  is  woman; 
tlacatl,  man ; michin,  fish ; ciuatlacamichin,  mermaid. 
But  Chimalpahin  has  Aciuatlmichintlaco  as  the  name  of 
a country,  “mermaid-land,”  in  which  the  terminations 
remain.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  Mexican  in  compound- 
ing, sheds  all  terminations  except  those  belonging  to  the 
last  word.  Sometimes  even  that  is  clipped,  which  is  uni- 
versally true  with  possessive  pronouns  as  nocal,  pronounced 
nocalh,  with  breathing  after  last  syllable.  In  Tupi,  the 
particles  are  pieced  together  in  bits  like  a mosaic,  aba, 
man;  zoo,  flesh;  u,  use,  eat;  hence  abaroii,  a cannibal. 
In  Quicliua,  a formidable  array  of  qualifiers,  not  abbre- 
viated, fall  into  line  with  the  precision  of  soldiers  on 

38 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


39 


parade,  the  principal  verb  at  the  conclusion  exactly  as  in 
the  long,  mouth-filling,  participial  phrases  of  classic 
Sanskrit,  such  as  the  example  already  quoted.1 

Terminations. — A brief  consideration  of  terminations 
will  help  to  an  understanding  of  Mexican  words  just  as  it 
will  greatly  increase  our  knowledge  of  English  or  any 
other  language.  In  English  r = he  who  does,  or  is.  The 
Latin  ter,  as  in  ma-ter,  performs  the  same  office.  The 
Mexican  tl  is  the  same,  as:  camafZ,  the  mouth;  Sanskrit, 
cam , to  sip  = camatl,  the  sipper.  But  care  must  be  taken 
to  distinguish  roots  ending  in  t,  in  which  case  the  ending  is 
r,  as:  at-1,  water,  tzint-li,  end.  Such  words  are  clipped 
in  compounding  as  if  the  termination  were  tr,  tl,  as: 
a-calli,  boat;  quauh-tein-co,  at  the  foot  of  the  tree. 

l Lewis  H.  Morgan  has  said  (.Ancient  Society)  that  perhaps  more  books  have 
been  written  about  the  Aztecs  and  more  speculation  indulged  concerning  them 
than  has  fallen  to  the  lot  of  any  other  people.  The  Nauatl  language  has  been 
slighted  or  mistreated  by  many  writers  who  have  had  occasion  to  come  in  con- 
tact with  it.  Prescott  disliked  it  and  openly  expressed  his  contempt  for  it,  but 
he  may  be  excused  because  of  his  defective  eyesight  which  rendered  its  study 
formidable.  But  he  ridiculed  the  derivations  of  Kingsborough  when  in  fact 
Kingsborough  was  following  a trail  and  Prescott  was  not.  Even  such  careful 
writers  as  Fiske  and  Morgan  misspell  Mexican  words  and  evidently  at  times  do 
not  fully  comprehend  them.  The  structure  of  Mexican  is  such  as  to  lend  itself 
readily  to  wrong  interpretation.  The  polysyllabic  words  may  at  times  assume 
different  meanings  according  to  different  analyses.  Chichimecatl , the  name  of  a 
tribe,  is  a case  in  point.  It  has  been  defined  by  Molina,  Simeon,  and  other 
authorities,  as  “one  who  sucks.”  This  is  an  Indian  definition  and  the  Indian 
definition  when  it  can  be  ascertained  positively  is  obviously  best,  since  a native 
always  knows  his  own  language  better  than  a foreigner.  A.  F.  Bandelier  (Pea- 
body Museum.  Report , 1876-79,  p.  393)  discusses  Chichimecatl.  He  thinks  it  may 
mean  simply  “red  men”  from  chichiltic , red,  and  mecayotl,  kindred.  But  me- 
catl  may  mean  a tie,  a cord,  a whip,  a mistress.  Chichi,  unquestionably  may 
mean  dog.  Hence  chichi-mecatl  may  mean  just  as  easily  an  Eskimo  dog  team  as 
it  could  mean  “ red  men,”  and  one  writer  suggests  it  may  mean  a pack  of 
hounds.  The  syncope  of  l weakens  Bandolier’s  derivation.  It  should  be  chichim- 
mecatl  to  satisfy  his  solution  from  a root  chil.  Another  writer  (American 
Antiquarian),  commenting  on  Bandelier’s  derivation,  suggests  chichic,  bitter  + 
metl,  “maguey  drinkers”  (pulque).  But  this  is  improbable,  I think,  since  it 
omits  final  ca.  My  own  view  is  that  two  homonyms  obscure  the  meaning.  In 
Sanskrit  dhl,  Mexican  chi,  means  to  suck;  but  dhi  also  means  devotion;  while 
dhr,  chi,  means  brave.  Hence  the  Chichi-meca  “dogs”  were  no  doubt  simply  the 
pious  or  the  brave  people.  (See  quau-chimalli , p.  52.  For  ca  (ka),  see  Whit- 
ney, Sanskrit  Grammar,  secs.  1186a,  1222c.) 


40 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


The  principal  terminations  of  nouns  in  Mexican  are 
tl,  tli , li,  qui,  ni,  e,  a,  ua,  uan.  Of  these,  tl,  tli,  li,  qui, 
ni,  all  have  the  force  of  r — tl,  as  above,  that  is,  they 
assert.  The  difference  between  tl  and  tli  appears  to  be 
one  of  euphony,  as  cone/?,  son;  tlan tli,  a tooth.  Li,  it 
must  be  remembered,  is  equivalent  to  ri  or  r of  the  other 
tongues,  as  icpal//,  a seat  might  be  *icparri.  Such  assimi- 
lation of  a consonant  is  very  common  in  Sanskrit  and 
Latin,  as  scala,  stairway,  * scad-la,  *scal-la.  Qui  no 
doubt  = Sanskrit,  Jcr  (kar)  make,  one  who  makes;  chiuqui, 
from  cliiua,  do,  is  one  who  makes  and  tla-chiuh-tli  is  a thing 
done  or  made.  Catl  asserts  nationality,  trades,  etc.,  as: 
Azt ecatl,  an  Aztec;  puchteca//,  a merchant.  (See  p.  46.) 

Ni  is  predicative  as,  ni-tlatoaw,  or  is  equivalent  to  tl 
(r),  yaw',  a traveler  = ya,  go-f-ni.  Ni  is  perhaps  a more 
emphatic  asseverative  in  tlatoani  one  who  rules,  i.  e.,  who 
speaks.  Ni  is  much  used.  It  is  a frequent  ending  of 
adjectives  and  nouns,  as:  ni-qualani,  I am  angry;  ti- 
qualani,  thou  art  angry;  qualani,  he  is  angry.  Otl,  utl 
is  the  ending  of  abstract  nouns,  though  not  confined  to 
that  class. 

E is  a possessive  ending:  tlantli,  tooth;  tlane,  toothed. 
E appears  to  have  the  same  function  in  Accadian. 

Ua  is  the  same;  tlatquitl,  riches,  tlatqui/ma,  a rich 
man;  plural,  tlatquihwogwe.  Ua,  uan,  New  Persian  van, 
means  neighbor,  as:  nota  icauallocahuan,  my  father,  his 
horse,  and  its  companions  = my  father’s  horses.  A or  tla 
means  “abounding  in;”  tetl,  a stone;  tetla,  a stony  place. 

Ian,  an,  is  equivalent  to  Latin  um,  Greek  on;  icala- 
qnian  tonatiuh,  sunset,  literally,  his  going  in  place. 

Adjectives  usually  end  in  ic,  c,  qui,  ni,  o,  que,  tli, 
though  there  are  many  irregularities  in  Mexican  and 
exceptional  usages.  Examples  of  regular  forms:  cbipauac, 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


41 


clean;  coztic,  yellow;  iztac,  white;  tetl,  a stone;  tetic, 
hard;  teyo,  stony. 

Yo  or  o — y in  English.  Eztli,  blood;  ezyo,  bloody; 
xochitl,  flowers;  zochiyo,  flowery;  citlallin,  a star;  citlallo , 
starry;  iztatl,  salt;  iztayo,  salty. 

Ti  appears  to  ascribe  quality  as  in  English;  eua/fca, 
seated.  Ti  has  the  same  genitive  use  in  Chinese,  Assyrian, 
and  English. 

But  some  adjectives  end  in  in  as  before  stated ; imatini, 
prudent,  from  mati,  to  think.  Adjectives  also  end  in  ti, 
as:  teycicati,  perfect.  Words  in  ati  (ti)  may  be  adjectives, 
verbs,  or  nouns,  as:  t-iztlacati  (ti-iz),  thou  art  a liar. 
This  is  called  the  substantive  verb.  It  is  often  almost 
impossible  to  distinguish  this  verb  from  such  an  adjective 
as  teycicati,  before  quoted.1  Adjectives  also  appear  to 
end  in  cci,  as:  mimatca,  subtle  = mo  + imat  + ca,  really 
adverbs. 

Adverbs  are  formed  from  adjectives  by  suffixing  ca,  as : 
chipauac,  clean,  chipauaca,  cleanly;  or  by  suffixing  tica,  as 
ilhuitl,  a feast;  ilhuitica,  festively;  or  with  catica,  as  tlat- 
quihua,  rich;  tlatquihuacatica,  richly.  Ca  = Latin  que 
enclitic. 

Liztli. — Having  neither  infinitive  nor  participle  the 
Mexican  language  lacks  the  flowing  continuity  of  the  other 
Aryan  tongues.  The  nearest  equivalent  to  the  present 
active  participle  in  other  tongues  is  the  verbal  noun  end- 
ing in  liztli,  as  chiua,  do,  make,  chiualiztli,  “a  doing” 
of  something.  The  passive  voice  expresses  the  same  idea 
more  specifically  as,  tlcixcalchiualo,  bread  is  being  made. 
Mexican  grammarians  treat  this  verbal  ending  as  liztli, 
but  they  were  little  given  to  analysis.  I think  the  real 

1 Compare  this  termination  ati  with  musallikati,  a pipe  cleaner,  Arabic; 
also  tl  with  fatatri,  a pastry  cook.  The  copulative  verb  be  (sum)  is  regularly 
omitted  in  Mexican. 


42 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


formation  was  this:  china,  do;  chiua  + m would  mean 
“doing-becomes”  or  “doing-attains,”  which  became  simply 
chiualo,  “is  done  or  made.”  This  is  identical  with  the 
Latin  passive  voice.  Perhaps  this  word  once  took  the 
form  *chiualis  in  accordance  with  the  universal  Aryan  s 
termination.  From  this  came  chinalis  -j-  tr,  a double  ter- 
mination not  uncommon  in  Mexican,  hence  “chiualiztli,” 
or,  more  correctly,  “ iztli .”  It  is  sometimes  syncopated 
as:  choquiztli,  weeping,  not  choquiliztli. 

Tzin. — Honorifics  are  of  frequent  occurrence  in  some 
oriental  languages.  The  Japanese  is  full  of  such  expres- 
sions as:  “the  honorable  passengers  will  deign  to  claim 
their  respected  baggage.”  Servility  in  its  varying  gra- 
dations from  slave  to  monarch,  found  expression  in  nicely 
graduated  phrases  to  fit  every  possible  occasion.  The 
chief  Mexican  honorific,  in  fact  the  only  one  worth  men- 
tioning, is  tzin.  It  means  sir,  honorable,  dear  friend,  lord, 
etc.  A father  says  by  way  of  endearment,  nopiltzin,  my 
dear  son.  I do  not  know  the  original  meaning  of  tzin. 
It  is  possibly  the  Assyrian  sin.  Naram -Sin,  king  of 
Assyria,  was  the  son  of  Sargon  I,  and  reigned  about  3700 
B.  o.  (later  authorities  say  3000  B.  c.).1  Cautemocfzm 
was  the  last  Mexican  emperor,  dethroned  and  put  to  death 
by  Cortez  1524  a.  d.  Here  is  an  interval  of  5,224  years 
between  these  monarchs,  the  first  recorded  and  the  last  to 
wear  this  ancient  and  honorable  title  or  appellation.  Sin 
or  zin  is  not  very  closely  defined  in  Norris’  Dictionary, 
but  reference  is  made  in  at  least  one  case  to  its  meaning 
a great  and  successful  hunter,  also  soldiers  and  gods.  It 

i Canon  Rawlinson  in  The  Five  Great  Monarchies  identifies  the  “ Sin  ” mon- 
archs with  sinu,  the  moon  (god),  but  I think  his  acceptation  of  the  word  is  too 
narrow.  Ta  ztnnai,  “ beasts  of  chase ; ” Norris’  Assyrian  Diet.,  p.  357 ; fs  changes 
to  sh  or  s,  (Norris) ; “ ili-sunu  zinuti.  ishtari-snnu  sapshati,  unikh ; ” “ gods-their 
armed,  goddesses-their,  attired,  were  reposing”  (Norris,  p.  359).  Compare 
Sargon  with  Hungarian,  sarga,  yellow. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


43 


evidently  was  applied  to  very  noteworthy  personages. 
As  we  have  seen,  tzin  became  generalized  in  Mexican, 
where  it  finally  means  little  more  than  Mr.  in  English. 
In  fact,  its  use  is  so  generalized  as  often  to  seem  absurd. 
It  may  be  tacked  on  almost  any  part  of  speech.  Its  plural 
is  tzitzin.  (Compare  Chinese  Tientzin.) 

Postpositions. — Co  in  Mexican  means  with  or  in,  as: 
Mexica,  the  Mexicans;  Mexico,  with  the  Mexicans,  that  is, 
in  the  city.  The  same  “thought-form”  prevailed  in 
Greek.  The  Athenians  did  not  ordinarily  call  their  city 
Athens,  if  indeed  they  ever  did.  They  said  ’AOr/vyo-i,  with 
the  Athenians.  C is  probably  identical  with  co  as  an 
abbreviation  in  such  words  as  Chapultepec,  cemanauac. 
This  A'-form  is  also  Algonquin  apparently. 

Other  postpositives  meaning  in,  or  at  a place,  are  tlan, 
in  Coati tlan,  place  of  snakes,  qualcan,  a good  place; 
tlaqualizpem,  meal  time;  c in  Chapultepec,  “grasshopper 
hill.”  Pal  means  in  company  with,  as  ipal  nemoani , a 
very  ancient  phrase  meaning  deity.  Pa  signifies  like  or 
with,  as  occ epa,  another  time;  it  is  also  Sanskrit,  as  push- 
ed, flourishing.  Icpac  is  summit  or  top  of  anything,  as 
quauh-icpac,  in  the  tree-top.  All  these  postpositives  were 
probably  once  significant  words  in  themselves.  As  may 
be  seen,  they  answer  to  prepositions  in  the  modern  lan- 
guages. They  are  numerous  in  Japanese  and  Chinese, 
and  in  the  latter  language,  may  precede  the  words  quali- 
fied. This  form  of  expression  indicates  the  great  antiquity 
of  Mexican.  But  this  is  not  a Mexican  grammar  and 
perhaps  enough  has  been  said  already  to  make  the  subject 
clear.  Vestiges  of  this  form  of  expression  linger  in  Eng- 
lish: for  instance,  loard  as  found  in  homeward,  skyward, 
equivalent  to  toward  home,  toward  the  sky;  manlike,  like 
a man;  therein. 


44 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


This  feature  of  syntax  is  also  employed  by  the  Turanian 
languages  and  the  modern  dialects  of  India.  The  Turan- 
ian tongues  have  a peculiar  vowel  sequence,  traces  of  which 
are  found  in  Mexican.1 

L and  R. — The  Mexican  alphabet  lacks  the  letter  r, 
but  l is  its  equivalent.  Substituting  r for  l in  atl,  we  have 
atr,  Slavonic  voda,  not  much  different  from  water,  in  fact 
the  same  word.  R and  l are  peculiar  letters  in  the  lin- 
guistic scheme  of  the  world;2  besides  being  interchangeable, 
they  allow  vowels  to  play  hide  and  seek  around  them  in  a 
puzzling  way.  In  Sanskrit,  there  exists  a vocalic  r(r)  and 
l which  play  the  part  of  vowels.  The  Sanskrit  also  has  a 
regular  r and  l and  the  name  for  the  letter  r is  ra  instead 
of  or.  Sanskrit  tolerates  such  forms  as  ddrgam,  I saw. 
A vanishing  vowel,  usually  an  o-sound,  must  of  necessity 
have  preceded  or  followed  r.  Otherwise  ddrgam  is  unpro- 
nounceable. The  usual  Greek  equivalent  of  vocalic  r (r) 
was  ra  as  in  d§rkomai,  I see ; 6drakon,  I saw.  The  latter  was 
possibly  once  6darakon.  The  unaccented  vowel  naturally 
perished.  Every  student  of  Greek  may  recall  the  fact 
that  anomalies  of  this  kind  were  usually  explained  as 
metathesis,  whereas  they  were  cases  of  vowel  decay. 

The  word  for  wolf,  vrka,  in  Sanskrit,  illustrates  admir- 
ably the  vocalic  character  of  r and  l,  and  at  the  same  time 
their  interchangeableness.  The  word  was  originally, 
probably  vrk,  vragc,  *vrask,  the  tearer.  The  Greek  is 
liikos,  v disappearing  and  r becoming  l;  Latin,  lupus; 
Church  Slavonic,  vluku;  English,  wolf,  *wolk.  The 
English  form  is  wholly  unrecognizable  were  it  not  for  the 
connecting  links  in  other  languages.  Observe:  that  while 
Sanskrit  and  Greek  retain  k;  Sanskrit,  Church  Slavonic, 

i Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology,  p.  8. 

2Pezzi,  Aryan  Phonology , pp.  17  If. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


45 


and  English  retain  initial  v;  Latin  and  English  have 
passed  from  k to  p (chapter  “Phonology”).1 

I have  gone  into  the  study  of  r and  l at  some  length, 
because  r in  particular  is  very  important  in  determining 
derivations,  also  the  value  of  terminations  in  many  lan- 
guages. The  old  Aryan  r (ra)  had  a determining  value, 
or,  speaking  grammatically  it  had  a nomen  agentis  value. 
For  example,  in  the  word  farmer,  farm  is  the  entity  or 
inert  object,  while  r adds  the  significance  by  affirming  an 
agency  and  naming  the  agent.  Hence  a farmer  is  the 
active  agent  who  utilizes  a farm.  In  Spanish  caballo  is 
horse  and  Caballero,  originally  horseman,  is  a gentleman. 
Here  r converts  the  word  horse  into  a longer  word  with 
the  resultant  meaning  “one  who  rides  a horse,”  the  addi- 
tional o being  simply  for  euphony,  ero=er.  Thus  the  single 
letter  r expands  into  the  relative  clause  “he  who  does.” 

L and  R as  primitives. — In  Mexican,  an  l may  have 
been  originally  an  r but  perhaps  it  never  was.  In  Sanskrit 
r prevails;  in  Zend  and  Old  Persian  l is  missing.  Any 
discussion  of  the  reason  why  the  Mexicans  lost  r,  b,  and 
g,  would  involve  ingenious  speculation,  without  definite 
results.  The  same  phenomenon,  paucity  of  consonants, 
occurs  in  other  ancient  languages.  The  truth  may  be  that 
some  modern  forms  of  speech  have  simply  developed  more 
consonants,  though  Mexican  has  unquestionably  lost  them.2 
It  is  a question  of  abstract  phonics  and  vocalization,  in 
short,  a history  of  human  utterance.  Persons  who  are  not 
philologists  may  be  disinclined  to  accept  the  mere  dictum 
that  r so  often  resolves  itself  into  l.  There  are  numerous 
instances  and  there  is  also  evidence,  apparently,  that  the 
lost  r may  unaccountably  return  to  a language  as  in  mod- 

1 Urku  is  dog  in  Assyrian,  Norris’  Dictionary , p.  505. 

2 “ Ancient  languages  are  very  deficient  in  consonants,”  Onft'roy  de  Thoron 
article,  Aryans  of  Peru. 


46 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


ern  Chinese.1  I will  cite  another  instance  where  it  appears 
plain  that  r and  l are  synonymous.  The  Mexican  word 
tlalli  means  earth,  the  ground;  the  old  Latin  word  tellus 
meant  the  same ; the  modern  Arabic  tel  means  land,  coun- 
try. But  the  later  Latin  for  earth  is  terra,  Sanskrit,  trs, 
to  be  thirsty  (dry).  Tel  in  Mexican  has  become  merely 
initial  tl.  The  full  word  may  have  been  *telcilli  instead 
of  tlalli.  In  Greek  tel ma  is  a swamp.  Mexican  possesses 
no  ancient  literature,  no  musty  tomes  or  corroded  archives 
in  which  to  trace  the  evolution  of  tel  or  trci,  tla.  But 
with  such  convincing  corroborative  evidence  in  languages 
so  widely  separated  in  time  and  in  geographical  distribu- 
tion, as  Greek,  Latin,  Arabic,  Mexican,  is  there  any  room 
for  reasonable  doubt  that  the  Mexicans  long  ago  said  tel- 
alli  or  teralli  instead  of  tlalli?  Also  note  what  has  just 
been  said  about  d6rkomai. 

Loss  of  terminations  in  plurals  and  compounds. — 
It  is  a curious  fact  that  in  Mexican  compound  words  the 
termination  of  the  first  member  of  the  compound  almost 
invariably  disappears:  Thus  cihuatl,  woman,  no-cihuauh , 
my  wife;  maitl , hand;  quechtli  (slender);  maquechtli,  the 
wrist;  puchtecatl,  a merchant,  plural puchteca,  merchants. 
There  seems  to  be  a disposition  in  this  very  primitive 
language  to  look  at  things  in  the  mass  or  quantity  rather 
than  as  individuals.  Thus  Azteccitl,  an  Aztec,  but  Azteca, 
the  mass,  is  the  plural  or  tribe.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
Greek  neuter  noun  which  takes  its  verb  in  the  singular 
involves  a similar  basic  thought.  The  only  explanation 
I think  of  concerning  the  last  example  and  others  like  it 
is  this:  pushteca  is  a sentence  meaning  they  guard  or  care 
for  goods.2  Popocatepetl  is  a similar  case  of  a clumsy 
noun-sentence,  literally  “smokes-mountain.” 

1 Chinese  Grammar , by  Professor  James  Summers,  Oxford. 

2Cf.  Pushmun,  an  Armenian  family  name. 


CHAPTER  VI 


Mexican  Word  Studies. — Tlani,  Quechtli,  Tzontli,  Xauani, 
Ualyolcatl,  Pixquitl,  Tlaca-tecolotl,  Metztli,  Tezcatl-ipoca, 
Youal-ehecatl,  Quauh-chiinalli,  Ozomatli,  Mexico. 

Owing  to  phonetic  decay  the  Mexican  language  pre- 
sents some  curious  forms  which  may  often  be  classed  as 
homonyms.  At  first  I was  greatly  puzzled  by  the  radical 
differences  in  the  meanings  of  the  same  word.  Some  of 
these  forms  I have  been  unable  to  derive  successfully,  but 
I mention  them  here  to  illustrate  the  difficulties  which 
beset  the  pioneer  in  the  analysis  of  American  languages. 

Tlani  means  command,  wish,  also  down;  nite- tlani 
means  to  gain  at  play;  mfZa-tlani,  to  lose.  The  first 
appears  regular,  that  is,  I have  commanded  some  one  or 
had  my  wish  of  him ; the  second  is  doubtless  one  of  those 
idioms  found  in  all  languages  which  cannot  be  explained 
by  taking  the  words  literally.  Nicte-chiuh-f /am  in  tequitl, 
“I  have  acquitted  you  of  the  tribute,”  is  very  hard  to  ex- 
plain literally  unless  we  understand:  I have  relieved  you 
by  putting  your  burden  on  some  one  else,  “te”  being  the 
indefinite  pronoun  for  “others.”  ' This  tlani  may  be 
derived  from  Sanskrit  tra,  to  protect.  Tlani , down,  may 
be  tr,  Trans,  through -\-ni,  nether,  down,  as  in  English  ne- 
ther, millstone. 

Quechtli  is  the  neck,  maquechtli , the  wrist,  but  quech- 
coatl  is  a rattlesnake.  I derive  the  first  from  Sanskrit, 
k r gj  Old  Latin,  cracentes,  classic  Latin,  gracilis,  slender ; 
the  second  I derive  from  Sanskrit,  khaj,  to  shake.1 

1 See  Max  Muller,  synonyms,  homonyms,  and  polynyms,  Chips  from  German 
Workshop,  Vol.  II,  p.  70.  " 


47 


48  THE  PBIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 

Tzontli,  400,  in  enumeration;  the  head  or  a head  of 
hair.  At  first  I felt  sure  this  was  Sanskrit,  §ata,  100; 
Greek,  h6katon;  Latin,  centum ; English,  hundred.  Pho- 
netically this  derivation  may  be  termed  normal  but  not 
proven,  hence  only  meaning  may  determine.  If  the  word 
originally  meant  four  hundred,  or  a large  number,  then 
tzontli  is  doubtless  cent- um;  but  if  the  original  meaning 
was  top,  head,  then  it  may  possibly  be  derived  from  san-u, 
Sanskrit,  top,  ridge,  a very  different  word ; or  it  may  be  a 
root  not  found  in  other  Aryan  tongues. 

Xauani,  to  drip,  and  xaua,  to  adorn,  would  appear  to 
be  related,  were  it  not  for  the  suspicious  ending  ni.  Xaua 
seems  to  be  found  in  the  Latin,  col- or.  The  fact  that 
these  very  different  forms  exist  with  identical  meanings 
in  Latin  and  Mexican  is  the  strongest  kind  of  proof  of 
the  common  Aryan  origin  of  the  two  languages.  When 
I had  elaborated  my  system  of  phonology  sufficiently  I 
noticed  this  word  xaua  and  argued  that  a Latin  word 
from  the  same  root  should  be  spelled  col.  I turned  to 
my  Latin  dictionary  and  found  the  cognate,  col-or.  But 
xauani  is  from  Sanskrit,  sr,  sarana,  to  run  (as  liquids). 
Compare  Latin,  col- o,  and  Sanskrit,  jala;  German, 
quellen;  and  for  xaua , Sanskrit,  gubh,  to  adorn.1 

Ualyolcatl  seems  a very  strange  and  forbidding  word 
to  English  eyes.  It  means  kindred,  consanguinity.  It  is 
derived  from  Sanskrit,  vr  to  inclose,  surround,  hence  those 
selected  or  set  off  from  the  rest  of  the  tribe  + vrj,  *varg, 
which  means  to  turn,  or  to  surround,  inclose,  thus  giving 
a double  meaning  to  the  word,  “those selected  and  inclosed” 
(in  a common  household),  that  is,  kin,  the  family.  Vrj&na 
from  vrj  meant  either  dwelling-place  or  dwellers. 

Pixquitl,  harvest,  is  phonetically  Aryan  pise ; Latin, 


1 See  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology , p.  11. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


49 


piscis,  a fish;  German,  fisclie;  Anglo-Saxon,  pise;  Irish, 
iasg;  English,  fish.  The  Mexican  word  for  fish  is  michin. 
How  then  is  this  transfer  of  meaning  to  be  explained  if 
pixquitl  meant  fish?  If  the  Nahua  once  inhabited  the 
northwest  Pacific  coast  country,  their  chief  occupation 
was  necessarily  fishing  and  to  speak  of  the  fish  harvest 
was  a natural  sequence.  But  this  is  one  of  the  cases 
referred  to  by  Professor  Noldeke  (see  p.  17)  where  close 
resemblance  of  forms  leads  the  negligent  philologist 
astray.  Pixquitl  is  Sanskrit  bljci,  *biska,  seed,  and  pixqui, 
priest,  is  no  doubt  prach,  Latin,  prex. 

Tlacatecolotl,  the  devil,  “the  Rational  Owl”  (Clavijero) , 
the  man  owl.  This  is  a very  puzzling  word  (for  birds  in 
mythology  see  p.  116).  It  may  be  analyzed  tlacatl, 
man  + tecolotl,  owl.  Since  this  is  the  Indian  explanation 
it  must  not  be  ignored.  But  since  Mexican  has  no  litera- 
ture, hence  no  records  of  word-history,  it  is  not  unreason- 
able to  assume  transfer  meanings.  Tlacci,  an  adverb, 
means,  by  day,  visible,  and  is  cognate  with  Sanskrit,  clrg 
to  see;  Greek,  Sep/copai;  tlcichia,  to  look,  observe,  is  from 
the  same  root.  Darga  in  Vedic  Sanskrit  meant  the  new 
moon.  Tecolotl,  owl,  is  no  doubt  Sanskrit,  uluka,  owl 
*iilftkatl,  and  a “bad-luck”  bird.  The  first  syllable  tec 
is,  I think,  from  tecolli,  a live  coal;  from  Sanskrit,  clah,  to 
burn;  Anglo-Saxon,  dseg;  English,  day.1  Hence  tlacatec- 
olotl may  mean,  “the  firebird,”  “the  shine  owl,”  “the 
moon-shiner,”  alluding  to  the  bright  eyes  of  the  bird  or 
its  plumage.  This  would  be  a very  reasonable  definition 
if  darga,  the  moon,  could  be  made  to  mean  night  which 
it  really  was.  But  the  Mexicans  distinctly  meant  day  in 
their  use  of  tlacci , thus:  “ tlcica  ti-ucdla,  cimo  youaltica ,” 
you  will  arrive  by  day,  not  by  night,  hence  tlaca  may 

i Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology , Table  0. 


50 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


mean  man  since  tec  supplies  the  idea  of  luminosity.1  In 
conclusion  I may  add  that  there  exists  today  a belief  in 
the  “luminous  owl.” 

Metztli  furnishes  a curious  instance  of  a transfer  of 
meanings.  Metztli  means:  (1)  a month ; (2)  the  moon; 
(3)  a leg.  Metztli  is  identical  in  verbal  form  with  the 
Sanskrit  mas,  the  moon,  which  in  turn  is  derived  from  md, 
to  measure;  Greek,  fiijvr);  Latin,  mensis;  German,  mond; 
English,  month.  The  moon  was  the  universal  measurer  of 
time  in  the  ancient  world  and  remains  so  with  Moham- 
medans. Hence  moon  and  month  are  etymologically  iden- 
tical. But  the  word  leg  suggests  a difficulty  and  English 
history  at  once  offers  a solution.  Our  yard  stick  was 
established  from  the  length  of  a royal  arm,  and  on  the 
authority  of  Brinton  the  Mexicans  employed  the  lower 
extremity  as  a standard  of  measure. 

Tezcatlipoca,  a god,  the  devil,  some  say  chief  of  the 
Mexican  pantheon.  Analyzed,  tezcatl  + ipoca.  Tezcatl 
is  defined  a lake,  a mirror  but  this  appears  to  be  a transfer 
meaning;  pocatl  is  smoke,  Greek,  w/cdfa,  shadow;  image 
in  the  mirror  as  indicated  by  the  possessive  pronoun  i. 
Hence  Tezcatlipoca  is  demon,  “his  or  its  image  in  the 
mirror.”  Tezcatl  is  Sanskrit  (Vedic),  tdskarci , thief, 
hence  evil-doer.  This  personage . was  also  called  tezcci- 


'A  curious  incideut  is  related  by  the  Rev.  Frank  Borton  ( Independent , Decem- 
ber, 1906)  as  told  him  by  a priest.  A certain  large  cross  was  a favorite  with  the 
Indians.  Examination  revealed  inside  it  a large  stuffed  owl. — My  speculation 
has  been  curiously  verified  later.  The  “luminous  owl”  really  exists.  See  T. 
Digby  Pigott,  Contemporary  Review , July,  1908. 

Brinton  ( Myths  of  the  New  World,  p.  106)  says  tlaca  was  prefixed  to  tecolotl 
by  the  Christans  and  that  no  such  deity  as  the  “man  owl  ” ever  existed  (reference 
Buschman).  He  defines  tecolotl  as  “the  stone  scorpion,”  from  tetl-\- colotl.  Verily 
some  extraordinary  conclusions  have  been  drawn  from  the  analysis  of  Mexican 
words.  As  a corroboration  of  this  cult  of  the  devil  in  Mexico  it  may  be  sufficient 
to  recall  the  rival  factions  of  ancient  Persia,  followers  of  Ormazd  and  Ahriman. 
A sect  in  Persia  today  keeps  up  this  devil  worship  (Carus,  History  of  the  Devil, 
p.  63). 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


51 


tecolotl,  thus  merging  the  two  devils  Tezcatl-ipoca  and 
Tlaca-tecolotl  into  one.  Tezcatl-ipoca  the  evil  specter  may 
be  classed  with  the  mirror  and  left-hand  superstitions — 
being  unlucky,  ill-omened,  malicious.  It  is  a well-known 
fact  that  some  tribes  of  Indians  refuse  to  allow  themselves 
to  be  photographed  because  the  taking  of  any  picture  or 
representation  of  the  person  is  “bad  medicine.”  In  this 
connection  compare  the  Aryan  traditions  connected  with 
the  mirror,  such  as  the  universal  belief  that  it  is  bad  luck 
to  break  a looking-glass,  and  the  Scotch  divinations  enacted 
by  lovers  before  the  glass.  Uitzilopochtli  himself  (chap, 
xiv)  was  intimately  connected  with  this  Old  Aryan,  “left- 
hand”  superstition.  Tezcatlipoca  was  also  called  Youal- 
eheccitl  or  “Spirit  of  the  Night.”1  He  carried  a mirror  in 
which  he  saw  all  that  went  on  in  the  world.  The  idea 
thief  is  plainly  embodied  in  the  mirror  which,  as  the  Indians 
believe,  steals  something  from  you. 

Youal-ehecatl,  spirit  of  the  night,  another  name  for 
Tezcatl-ipoca.  Analogy  and  etymology  combine  to  indi- 
cate that  the  Greek  goddess  Hecate  or  Artemis  is  indicated 
here.  Hecatos  the  masculine  form  was  an  epithet  of 
Apollo.  The  torch  in  her  hand  was  supposed  to  symbolize 
the  moon.  She  was  distinctly  a goddess  of  the  night. 

1 The  Aztec  gods  in  general  had  different  forms  or  aspects.  Usually  they  were 
grotesque  or  terrible.  I will  describe  one  aspect  of  Tezcatlipoca : A young  man 
of  pleasing  physiognomy,  rather  short  and  stout  appearing,  and  slightly  bent 
forward,  this  attitude  probably  assumed  to  comport  with  his  half  bird  appearance . 
His  vestment  is  an  ample  bird-mantle  of  blue  or  pale  purple,  the  wings  shading 
to  black  at  the  butts.  His  boxlike  headgear  is  of  the  same  color  and  surmounted 
by  waving  green  plumes.  His  feet  are  double,  above  the  human  feet,  springing 
from  the  ankle  joints,  are  the  feet  of  a cock.  From  his  wristlets  depend  red  rib- 
bons, tipped  with  yellow.  His  posture  indicates  animation.  Altogether  this 
gorgeous  personage  done  in  purple,  black,  red,  green  and  yellow  barely  escapes 
the  grotesque.  (Kingsborough’s  Mexican  Antiquities , Vol.  V,  p.  189,  plate  42; 
Codice  Mexicano,  MS  3738  Biblioteca  Vaticana.) 

For  a description  of  the  sacrifices  to  Tezcatlipoca  see  Prescott,  Conquest  of 
Mexico , Vol.  I,  pp.  79,  80 ; also  Sagahun,  Historia  de  Nueva  Espana,  Lib.  II,  caps . 
2,  5,  24.  For  a curious  account  of  his  apparition  and  interview  with  an  Aztec 
chief,  see  Chimalpahin,  Annals , Seventh  Relation,  1336, 1457. 


52 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


She  presided  over  magic  arts  and  spells  to  which  the 
Nahua  were  greatly  addicted.  As  goddess  of  the  moon 
she  is  directly  associated  with  the  moon  cult  as  represented 
in  Hindu  mythology  and  by  the  Algonquin  Manabozho. 
Dogs  were  sacrificed  to  her  and  she  was  frequently  repre- 
sented as  accompanied  by  dogs.  (See  Quauh-chimalli. ) 

Quauh-chimalli,  monkey ; chimalli,  a shield.  Ozomatli 
“the  divine  monkey”  was  one  of  the  “Stations”  of  the 
Aztecs  in  their  migration.  What  connection  can  possibly 
exist  between  a monkey  and  a shield?  I shall  try  to  un- 
ravel this  mystery  of  mythology  by  offering  what  I believe 
to  be  at  least  a plausible  solution.  The  days  of  the  month 
in  Nauatl,  Maya  and  Kich6-Cacchikel  were  assigned  “day 
gods.”  The  eighth  day  in  Maya  was  called  Chuen;  in 
Kioh6-Cacchikel,  Batzi ; in  Nauatl,  Ozomatli } Both  the 
latter  mean  monkey,  but  chuen  looks  as  if  it  meant  dog, 
kvwv,  canis.  Hence  there  may  have  been  a transfer 
meaning  in  the  other  two  languages  from  dog  to  monkey, 
since  such  transfers  are  not  infrequent.  In  Nauatl  (and 
Japanese)  chi  means  dog  and  chuen  may  be  the  same. 
The  dog  in  Mexican  was  sometimes  called  “the  lightning 
beast,”  from  tzitzini- liztli,  lightning,  an  epithet  doubtless 
derived  from  a homonym,  Sanskrit,  dina,  to  light  up; 
Mexican,  chinoa.  This  is  a step  toward  mythology.  The 
monkey  is  esteemed  sacred  in  India  today.  Here  is  a 
striking  coincidence,  the  words  dawn  and  lightning.  A 
third  step  is  that  Sanskrit,  dhi,  Mexican,  chi,  means  devo- 
tion. Malli  is  a puzzle.  Is  mal  a root  or  is  it  formative? 
In  Yedic  Sanskrit  gyama  meant  dark  or  black;  Qyam&rn 
(ayas)  was  iron  in  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Schrader,  though 
termed  “black  bronze.”  From  this  we  see  our  way  to 
chimalli,  shield,  black,  “iron  thing,”  dha,  to  put.  Turn 


1 In  Nauatl,  Ozomatli  was  the  11th  day;  cf.  Cimmerian,  cyam&m. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


53 


again  to  mythology.  Sar&ma,  the  faithful  dog  of  Indra, 
came  at  dawn  driving  up  her  cows  with  two  other  dogs(?), 
Oyftmd  and  Qab&la,  familiarly  “blackie”  and  “spot.”1  The 
dog  which  accompanied  the  “Unknown  God”  on  his  visit 
to  the  Inca  was  black  (Falb,  Land  of  the  Inca),  and  the 
dog  Ceberus  played  an  important  part  in  Greek  mythol- 
ogy as  guardian  of  the  portals  of  Hades.  Here  we  have 
the  connection  between  chi  or  chin,  the  dog  “blackie”  and 
chima- lli,  shield  (black  iron),  also  the  ideas  “divine” 
and  “dawn”  or  “lightning.”  But  it  remains  to  explain 
quauh  in  quauh-chimal,  monkey.  The  Sanskrit  name  for 
ape  was  kapl,  which  phonetically  becomes  Mexican  kauh. 
Hence  if  transfer  meaning  from  dog  to  monkey  took  place 
the  whole  is  clear  without  employing  the  specific  name  of 
SaiAma’s  dog  “blackie,”  but  simply  understanding  it  as 
the  black  ape  Qym&rft,  chimalli,  or  “the  Divine  monkey.”2 
I do  not  call  this  discussion  of  quauh-cliimalli  strictly 
scientific,  nor  is  it,  in  fact,  anything  more  than  plausible 
as  before  stated.  Chimalli  may  be  derived,  in  its  reli- 
gious aspect,  very  directly  and  simply;  din,  devotion -f- 
man,  to  think,  *man-ri,  malli;  hence  “the  pious,  rational 
ape.”  But  this  will  not  explain  chimalli  a shield. 

Ozomatli. — What  was  this  “divine  ape”  who  gave  a 
day  name  to  the  Mexican  calendar?  As  said  before 
leapt  Sanskrit  for  ape  became  quauh  in  Mexican  as  in 
quauh-chimalli,  “monkey-sacred,”  not  tree  monkey.  Hanu- 
man  was  a king  of  the  monkeys.  Rama  Chandra  was  an 
incarnation  of  Vishnu,  a sort  of  Hindu  Ulysses.  In  the 
Vedas  we  have  Vrshd-kapl  the  virile  ape  who  fought 

1 The  legend  of  The  Hound  of  the  Baskervilles , by  Conan  Doyle,  was  doubt- 
less founded  on  this  dog  or  Cerberus  legend.  This  supernatural  dog  has  become 
a spirit  of  evil  in  the  Island  of  Britain.  The  Welsh  call  it  Own  Wybir. 

2 The  philologist  will  ask  here  why  cya  develops  chi  rather  than  chia  or  cha. 
I can  scarcely  answer  that  question  but  usage  renders  either  form  probable. 


54 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


for  Rama.  Barth  remarks  that  the  modern  monkey  wor- 
ship of  India  may  go  back  to  this  warrior  ape  of  the 
Vedas.1  I would  add  that  it  unquestionably  does.  Matli 
is  probably  Sanskrit  mad  which  may  mean : joyous,  divine, 
drunk. 

Mexico.—  The  origin  of  the  word  Mexico  has  caused 
much  speculation.  Clavijero  discusses  it  and  connects 
it  with  the  god  Mexitli  and  no  doubt  correctly.  His 
“house”  was  Mexicaltzinco.  Lord  Kingsborough  tried  to 
derive  Mexico  from  the  Hebrew  meshiak,  Messiah,  “the 
anointed.”  In  my  earlier  work  I connected  it  with  the 
Assyrian  root  melch,  which  derivation  I still  believe  to 
have  a basis  in  fact.2  Some  think  it  may  be  metl,  maguey 
-\-citli,  hare,  hence  Mexitli  would  be  “the  hare  of  the 
maguey”  and  probably  related  to  the  Algonquin  “Great 
Hare”  Manabozho.  Others  connect  it  with  meyalli , a 
fountain.  This  is  evidently  wrong  phonetically.  Others 
suggest  metl  + ixtli  “face  to  face  with  the  magueys.” 
This  seems  absurd  and  wholly  lacking  in  specific  mean- 
ing since  “face  to  face  with  the  magueys”  might  mean 
almost  any  place  in  Mexico. 

When  the  curse  was  put  upon  the  Azteca,  Uitzilopoch- 
tli  changed  their  name  to  Mexica  and  spake  to  them: 
Yacachto  ti-tequitizque,  “for  the  first  ye  shall  labor.” 
Mexitli  was  another  name  for  Uitzilopochtli. 

The  god  Mexitli  is,  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  sim- 
ply the  Persian  Aliura-il/azda,  “the  great  god,”  the 

1 A.  Barth,  Religions  of  India,  p.  265.  The  phonetics  are:  vrsha,  virile,  be- 
comes ozo  (uzo)  in  Mexican,  r being  dropped ; in  kapi,  p=u,  hence  quauh= ka-u. 
The  frontispiece  of  The  Story  of  Vedic  India,  Ragozin,  gives  in  colors  a picture 
of  the  battle  between  Rama  with  his  army  of  apes  and  the  demon  king  of  Lanka 
(Ceylon).  The  “divine  monkey”  is  portrayed  as  performing  astounding  feats  of 
valor  and  agility.  Of.  Paul  Carus,  History  of  the  Devil,  p.  82. 

2 References  to  Mekh,  Norris,  Assyrian  Diet. : mekhazu,  stronghold  (p.  768) ; 
mekhira,  a superior  (772) ; la  makhri,  unequaled  (778) ; mekhran,  a city  (780). 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


55 


Supreme  Being.  Ahura,  Sanskrit  cisura,  god,  is  dropped 
and  only  mazda  = mexitli  remains.  It  is  not  uncommon 
in  Iranian  to  extend  a root  to  two  syllables  by  interposing 
a vowel.  Hence  mazd-a  becomes  *mazid-a,  Mexican,  mex- 
it-li.  The  root  is  mag  as  in  Latin  mag-nus,  large.1  If 
we  consider  the  Avestan,  mazdian  then  we  have  Mexi-tli 
= magian,  a priest  of  the  fire  worshipers. 

Tenochtitlan,  the  more  common  name  for  the  city  of 
Mexico,  is  simply  “place  of  the  rock  cactus”  and  no  doubt 
was  named  from  his  own  cognomen  by  its  founder  Tenoch. 

1 Cf.  Gray,  Indo-Iranian  Phonology , also  Tolman,  Old  Persian  Inscriptions, 
for  phonetic  changes.  Mazda  often  stands  alone. 


CHAPTER  VII 


Mexican  Syntax  — The  Prepositive-Objective  Pronoun  and 
“Thought  Forms” — Sequence  in  Sentence — Syntax  and 
Probable  Age  of  Mexican — Coalescing  Pronouns  — Con- 
jugation— “Desinences.” 

The  prepositive  object-pronoun  in  Mexican  seems 
wholly  superfluous.  This  scarcely  comes  under  the  head 
of  compounds  and  yet  it  is  in  effect  a species  of  com- 
pounding. In  the  sentence:  Nic-poa  in  amoxtli,  I read 
the  book,  c (qui)  is  the  prepositive  objective  pronoun 
which  usually  indicates  that  the  object  will  be  named 
later  on,  but  a pronoun  must  be  used  whether  the  object 
follows  or  not.  The  formula  is:  I-it-read,  the  book. 
The  indefinite  sentence:  Peter  reads  (or  reckons)  would 
be:  Petolo  tla- poa.  Qui  is  not  used  with  “pacientes,” 
that  is,  personal  objective  pronouns  as  Nimitz-tla^otla,  I 
love  you,  not  Nic-mitz-tlagotla.  The  indefinite  pronoun 
tla,  it,  has  a similar  use  but  represents  things  indefinitely 
while  te  represents  persons.  This  is  a curious  survival 
apparently  confined  to  American  languages.1  We  may 
well  speculate  concerning  the  origin  of  so  curious  a syn- 
tactical device.  It  appears  useless  now,  but  once  the  logi- 
cal order  of  expression  was  different.  The  primitive  man 
returning  tired  from  the  chase  or  driving  his  herds,  at 
first  sight  of  his  dwelling,  exclaimed  tersely,  “house.” 
That  was  the  important  thing.  If  he  made  a statement  it 
was  “house,  I see  it,”  “house  not  far,”  etc.  Many  lan- 
guages even  yet  place  the  object  first.  It  was  a long  time 

1 Compare,  ni-te-tla-maca , I give-him-it,  with  French,  je-le-lui-donne,  I-it-to- 
him-give. 


56 


THE  PKIMITIVE  AEYANS  OF  AMERICA 


57 


before  the  more  analytical,  detailed  statement  “I  see  our 
house”  could  come  into  use.1  Perhaps  the  Mexicans 
began  to  place  the  object  after  the  verb,  occasionally,  at 
first,  and  then  generally,  and  the  old  instinct  probably 
told  them  there  should  still  be  something  before  the  verb 
to  act  as  a sort  of  index.  It  is  possible  that  c was  at  first 
an  objective  case  sign,  indicating  the  object  in  a tongue, 
without  gender,  number,  or  inflection,  like  the  Japanese 
ga , the  sign  of  the  nominative  case.  The  noun  may  have 
been  switched  over  to  follow  the  verb,  while  the  sign  got 
glued  to  the  subject  pronoun  and  remained  there.  Japa- 
nese and  Chinese  still  use  such  signs;  also  Tupi,  to  a 
limited  extent. 

I think,  in  fact,  Tupi  may  offer  a curious  corrobora- 
tion of  this  view.  There  is  a feature  of  the  possessive- 
objective  in  that  language  which  I confess  I am  unable  to 
understand  from  the  meager,  hazy  treatment  given  the 
subject  by  Ruiz  de  Montoya,  though  I have  tried  hard  to 
grasp  the  gist  of  the  matter.  He  speaks  of  “reciprocals” 
and  “relatives.”  The  rule  is,  that  every  noun  beginning 
with  h,  t,  r,  has  its  relative  g and  its  reciprocal  h.  Other 
nouns  have  y “relative,”  o “reciprocal.”  Tera,  name; 
cherera,  my  name;  hera,  his  (ejus)  name;  guera,  his 
(suum)  name.  Example:  tub  begins  with  t.  Peru  yuba 
ohaihu  oci  ab6.  Peter  his  father  loves,  his  mother  also; 
g is  a “relative”  possessive-objective.  Tupi  is  given  to 
queer  phonetic  changes;  tu  or  tub(a)  is  father;  cheruba 
is  possessive-nominative,  my  father  (che  -f-  r + ub) ; guba 
is  possessive-objective.  May  not  g,  here  be  an  old  objec- 
tive sign  coalesced  and  analogous  to  the  Mexican?  The 

iThe  first  arrangement  has  been  called  the  “logical”  and  the  second  the 
“natural.”  These  are  arbitrary  terms  since  both  are  logical  and  both  natural. 
Byrne  says  that  thoughtful  races  adopt  the  order  subject-verb  while  careless 
races  employ  verb-subject.  Principles  of  the  Structure  of  Language,  Vol.  II,  p.  281. 


58 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


formula  would  be  ge  + tub.  [In  fact  this  seems  to  be 
wholly  a question  of  phonetics.]1 

Sequence  in  sentence. — Modern  Mexican  places  the 
adjective  before  the  noun,  and  the  object,  as  a rule,  after 
the  verb,  thus  following  the  “natural”  order.  But  there 
are  indications  that  once  the  “logical”  may  have  at  least 
partially  prevailed.  The  usual  order  in  an  indefinite  sen- 
tence is  (1)  inseparable,  nominative  pronoun,  (2)  preposi- 
tive, objective  pronoun,  (3)  verb;  as:  ni-tlci-qua,  I-it-eat. 
But  the  object  noun  may  be  clipped  of  its  termination  and 
compounded  before  the  verb  as:  nacatl,  meat,  ni-naca- 
qua,  I-meat-eat;  finally  where  nouns  are  employed  for 
both  subject  and  object  the  order  may  be  (1)  verb,  (2) 
object,  (3)  subject;  as:  (a)  “ Auh  ic  quin-macac  in  ipil- 
tzin  in  Ch  inancoca  itoca  Cacamatl  Totec;  Chinancoca  gave 
them  his  son  by  name  Cacamatl  Totec.”  Or  the  order  may 
be,  (1)  verb,  (2)  subject,  (3)  object:  as  (6)  “ yancuica 
achtopa  oquittaque  in  Tlacochcalcci-Chalca  in  opopocac 
in  tepetl,  for  the  first  time  the  Tlacochcalca-Chalca  saw 
[that]  smoked  the  mountain.”2  Mexican  continually  em- 
ploys the  predicate  adjective  in  what  must  be  considered 
as  a sentence.  Thus  Sanskrit,  vrshd-kapl,  virile  ape; 
but  the  Mexican  reverses  this,  a Latinism,  and  says  ozo- 


iln  the  Tukiok  dialect  of  Polynesia,  there  is  something  resembling  this: 
mig  ruma  or  rvma-ig,  equally  mean,  my  house.  A Melanesian  form  is  etuia-k, 
my  father.  In  Papuan,  ina-gu  is  my  mother.  But  these  affixes  are  all  in  the  first 
person.  As  to  position,  notice  post-  and  pre-position  in  the  first  example  quoted. 
Briuton  gives  uba,  father,  but  Montoya’s  excellent  dictionary  gives:  tu.b,  father; 
cheruba,  my  father;  tuba,  ejus  pater;  guba,  suum  pater.  With  such  phonetic 
changes  it  is  very  difficult  to  determine  the  real  root.  Brinton  apparently 
held  the  view  that  “ relatives”  refers  to  relationship,  consanguinity.  But  there 
are  changes  which  are  not  capable  of  such  explanation  and  are  hard  to  explain 
in  any  way  as  tesa,  eyes,  cheresa,  my  eyes;  supia,  egg;  sapucai,  hen,  but  sapucai 
rupid , a hen’s  egg.  Compare  Sanskrit  change  of  final  r to  s and  nigori  in 
Japanese,  as  kuni  kuni  to  kuni  guni.  This  change  applies  to  prepositions  also 
in  Tupi  as  tenonde , before;  puenonde,  before  him. 

2 References:  Chimalpahin,  Annals,  Seventh  Relation  (a)  year  1342;  (6)  1347. 
The  earliest  historical  account  of  an  eruption  of  Popocatepetl. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


59 


matli,  the  ape  [which  is]  active.  Compare  the  French 
un  homme  grand , a man  [who  is]  distinguished,  but  un 
grand  homme  is  simply  a tall  man. 

Age. — Mexican  syntax  is  also  a strong  proof  of  the 
extreme  antiquity  of  the  language.  The  Yedic  Sanskrit 
allowed  much  more  latitude  in  the  position  of  modifiers 
than  did  the  classic  Sanskrit.  The  same  feature  prevails 
in  the  Mexican  today.  To  illustrate:  o-mo-ual-cuep,  he 
returned,  literally  “he  back  turned.”  Here  o is  the  aug- 
ment which  is  separated  from  its  verb  cuep  by  the  adverb 
ual  and  the  pronoun  mo.  This  arrangement  in  Greek 
would  be  an  impossible  barbarism.  The  augment  is  fre- 
quently omitted  in  Mexican,  in  perhaps  half  the  cases,  the 
same  thing  in  the  same  proportion  holds  good  in  Vedic 
Sanskrit.1 

Mexican  has  no  infinitive , though  Assyrian  possessed 
an  infinitive  5,000  years  ago.  It  is  not  probable  that 
Mexican  once  had  an  infinitive  and  lost  it  later.  I know 
of  no  such  case.  The  rudiments  of  an  infinitive,  perhaps 
the  very  germ  as  it  were,  arrested  forever,  may  be  found 
in  the  use  of  tlani.  Here  one  verb  was  plainly  made 
dependent  on  another  in  an  infinitive  relation,  as,  nicte- 
mac tlani,  I have  ordered  it  given  another ; nicte-chiuhZZam, 
I caused  another  to  do  it,  ninomauigolZam,  I desire  to  be 
honored.  Had  this  usage  extended  to  all  verbs  instead  of 
being  confined  to  this  parasitic  tlani , a genuine  infinitive 
would  have  resulted.  Poloa  is  used  similarly. 

The  Mexican  is  extremely  simple  in  its  syntax,  never- 
theless. The  adjective  as  an  attributive  precedes  the  noun 
as  in  English.  Iztacciuatl,  the  name  of  the  great  volcano, 
should  really  be  spelled  as  two  words:  iztac,  white,  ciuatl , 
a woman,  so  called  because  the  snow  on  its  summit  lies  in 

1 Whitney,  Sanskrit  Grammar,  sec.  587,  a,  b,  c,  d. 


60 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


a long  line  resembling  the  body  of  a dead  woman  in  her 
shroud ; in  Spanish  Mujer  Blanca.  The  possessive  adjunct 
usually  precedes  its  head  word,  though  no  ambiguity 
results  if  it  follows  thus:  Nota  i-cauallo,  my  father’s  horse, 
literally,  “my  father,  his  horse,”  or  i-cauallocahuan  in 
nota,  my  father’s  horses.  This  is  New  Persian  as,  daman 
i-koh,  hillside.  For  the  important  and  peculiar  use  of  the 
possessive  pronoun,  as  used  in  nota  (no  tatli),  I would 
refer  the  reader  to  a Mexican  grammar. 

Connectives  are  few  in  Mexican.  There  is  no  true 
relative  pronoun.  This  lack  of  connectives  gives  the  lan- 
guage scantiness  of  thought  or  at  least  the  appearance  of 
it,  as:  Nic-nequi  nic-quaz,  literally,  I wish  I shall  eat,  for 
I shall  eat.  There  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  use  of  the 
imperative  in  the  singular.  Thus:  ma  nitla-qua  may  mean 
(1)  May  I eat  (precative) ; (2)  I do  not  eat;  (3)  I am 
going  to  eat.  The  voice  distinguishes  them.1 

Coalescing  pronouns.  — In  Assyrian  the  possessive 
pronoun  follows  its  headword  instead  of  preceding  it. 
Thus,  “their  corpses”  would  be  written  pagri-sunu, 
corpses-their,  while  the  Mexican  would  say:  sunupag , 
clipping  the  termination  from  the  last  word,  assuming  that 
he  used  the  same  words.  But  position  may  count  for  lit- 
tle. Considering  the  lapse  of  time,  perhaps  the  Assyrian 
once  said  sunupagri.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
Assyrian  was  spoken  without  radical  change  through  a 
period  of  nearly  5,000  years.  Such  language-vitality 
makes  English  and  other  modern  languages,  except  Greek, 
Lithuanian,  Finnish,  etc.,  seem  like  mere  mushrooms  of 
speech.  We  are  2,500  years  later  than  Nebuchadnezzar, 
but  the  latter  himself,  was  3,200  years  later  than  Sargon  I. 
Both  spoke  Assyrian.  Lithuanian  retains  a curious  sort  of 

i Olmos,  Grammar  of  Nahuatl , p.  82. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


61 


liaison  which  practically  links  two  words  into  one,  as  the 
recent  investigations  of  R.  Grauthiot  in  Lithuania  conclu- 
sively show  and  decide  a mooted  point.1  The  Hindus 
wrote  an  entire  sentence  as  one  word,  and  liaison  in  pro- 
nunciation probably  took  place  as  in  modern  Lithuanian 
in  certain  cases,  though  modern  grammarians  are  inclined, 
I think  erroneously,  to  consider  this  feature  of  classic  San- 
skrit as  largely  artificial.2  (See  the  Sanskrit  phrase 
quoted,  p.  34.)  In  language  we  must  accept  things  as 
they  are,  however  illogical  and  arbitrary  they  may  appear. 
Apparent  contradictions  may  exist  side  by  side  in  dialects 
of  the  same  language.  Thus  in  colloquial  Arabic,  the 
pronoun,  possessive  or  demonstrative,  precedes  its  noun  in 
Syria,  as:  thal-beit,  this  house.  In  Egypt  it  usually  fol- 
lows as:  el-beit  tha.3 

The  coalescing  possessive  pronoun  would  appear  to  be 
Semitic,  but  it  is  also  Hungarian  as,  tollci,  a pen  (feather)  ; 
tollam,  my  pen;  tollad,  thy  pen.  Compare  tollci  here, 
with  Nauatl  tollin,  a reed;  Spanish  tul6.  This  prepositive 
adhering  pronoun  is  not  a feature  of  Aryan  syntax  in 
general.  This  fact  alone  might  indicate  that  Mexican  is 
a Turanian  language  which  separated  from  the  mother 
tongue  along  with  West-Ugrian  (Finnish  and  Hungarian) 
before  the  defection  of  Aryan,  were  it  not  for  the  Aryan 
vocabulary  of  Mexican.  The  postpositive  system  is  not 
Western- Ary  an,  but  it  finds  many  parallels  in  Sanskrit  as 
mcmushvat,  as  Manu  did.  But  the  lack  of  an  infinitive, 
which  Sanskrit  possesses,  and  which  is  wholly  wanting  in 
Mexican,  indicates  clearly  the  archaic  form  of  the  latter.1 

1 Lithuanian,  Buividzi  Dialect , Essai,  par  R.  Gauthiot,  Paris. 

2 Whitney,  Sanskrit  Grammar , 101,  a. 

2 Tien's  Manual,  p.  52. 

4 Modern  Bulgarian  has  no  infinitive.  For  discussion  of  the  development  of 
infinitives  see  Max  Mailer,  “Rede  Lecture”  in  Chips  from  a German  Workshop. 


62 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


The  infinitive  proper  is  a subtlety  of  speech  which  indi- 
cates considerable  development  in  language. 

Conjugation. — Mexican  certainly  appears  to  contain 
the  first  stages  of  Aryan  verb  conjugation,  as  exhibited 
in  Sanskrit  and  Greek.  Let  us  examine  the  Mexican 
verb,  taking  maca,  to  give,  as  a model:  Ni-c-te-maca, 
I-it-to  someone-give. 


INDICATIVE  MODE 


PRESENT  TENSE 


Singular,  nicte-maca  . Plural,  ticte-maca 

ticte-maca  anquite-maca 

quite-maca  quite-maca 


Notice  that  the  third  person  is  subjectless,  with  regard 
to  pronouns,  a defect  common  to  some  American  lan- 
guages, also  to  Japanese,  Chinese,  etc.  The  reflective  and 
impersonal,  however,  employ  the  subject  as:  mo-chiua, 
it  is  doing. 

FUTURE 

Singular,  nicte-macaz  Plural.  ticte-macazqu6 

ticte-macaz  anquite-macazqu6 

quite-macaz  quite-macazqu6 

PRETERITE 


Singular,  onicte-mac 
oticte-mac 
oquite-mac 


Plural.  oticte-macqu6 

oanquite-macqu6 

oquite-macqu6 


Here  we  perceive  distinctly  the  “s”  sign  of  the  future 
tense  and  the  aorist  system  as  best  illustrated  in  the 
Greek.  In  the  Mexican  future  and  preterite  plural 
ending,  “ que"  = lea , I think  may  be  seen  the  equivalent 
of  the  Greek  perfect  termination  lea.  The  “s”  sign  of 
the  future,  the  augment  and  the  perfect  sign  lea  are 
thoroughly  Greek,  hence  Aryan.  It  is  impossible  that 
this  is  the  ruins  of  an  earlier  elaborate  system  of  con- 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


63 


jugation.  The  usage  of  the  two  tenses  also  corresponds 
largely  as:  eur£lca,  I have  found  it;  onicte-mac,  I gave 
it,  or  have  given  it. 

[This  view,  formulated  in  the  earlier  part  of  my  work,  is 
perhaps  not  adequate  in  the  treatment  of  the  verb.] 

Desinences. — These  devices,  unknown  to  western  Aryan 
tongues,  give  added  significance  to  a verb.  Co,  quiuh, 
qui,  mean  “just  done”  (venir  de  faire)  nitla-quaco,  I 
come  to  eat,  just  arrived;  to,  tiuh  ti,  “about  to  do”  (aller 
faire),  antemachti/o,  you  (plu. ) have  gone  to  teach.  The 
use  of  the  desinences  is  very  subtle,  and  at  times  ap- 
parently arbitrary.  An  extension  of  meaning  is  also 
given  by  linking  two  verbs  by  ca  or  ti,  as:  nitlaquaticac, 
ti  -|-  icac,  I eat  standing  up. 


CHAPTEK  VIII 


The  Particle  “tla” — “In,”  its  Use  and  History — Grammatical 
Gender — “Animate”  and  “Inanimate” — Thought  Forms 
and  Style. 

The  particle  tla. — The  Mexican  pronoun  tla  is  in 
constant  use,  in  fact  it  is  greatly  overworked.  It  is  an 
indefinite  pronoun,  the  use  of  which  may  be  illustrated 
in  this  brief  sentence:  nitla-matoca,  I touch  it,  literally, 
“I  it  touch.”  The  active  Mexican  verb  must  always 
have  an  object,  as  has  been  remarked  before,  and  when 
the  object  is  unknown  or  the  speaker  does  not  think  it 
worth  while  to  mention  it,  he  merely  inserts  tla  to  repre- 
sent it.  Tla  begins  many  verbs,  as  an  integral  part  of 
the  word,  and  is  often  simply  initial  tr  or  dr. 

There  are  cases  where  tla  seems  superfluous,  and  adds 
nothing  to  the  meaning,  as:  tlamana,  to  make  an  offering; 
tlanonolza , to  tell  a story;  tlapixqui,  to  guard;  tlagotla , 
to  love ; tlatlacalhuia,  to  injure ; tlaicnotililli , impoverished. 
As  may  be  seen,  these  verbs  are  all  active,  but  even  a 
noun  or  an  adjective  may  take  tla  in  the  sense  of  an  ob- 
ject, as  tlatomalli,  something  unraveled,  though  in  this 
case  the  verbal  might  well  govern  an  object.  This  con- 
stant repetition  of  tla  is  one  of  the  defects  of  the  language. 
Such  extreme  cases  as  tlatlagotla,  to  love,  arise  from  ety- 
mological complications. 

A large  proportion  of  the  excess  of  words  under  t, 
which  constitutes  about  one-fourth  of  the  entire  vocabu- 
lary, is  caused  by  this  persistent  tla,  and  tla  as  an 
introductory  particle  or  pronoun  cannot  be  easily  ex- 
plained. Mexican  grammarians  derive  tla  from  itla, 

64 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA  65 

thing.  Let  us  insert  thing  and  see  if  it  is  adequate. 
“Raveled-thing”  makes  sense;  but  there  is  no  sense  in 
“love-thing,”  “pray-thing,”  “oration-thing,”  “injure- 
thing.” 

In  my  opinion,  tla  must  be  sought  elsewhere.  It  is 
simply  tr  = through,  completely;  Latin,  trans;  Sanskrit, 
tra.  It  often  appears  to  be  simply  an  article  as:  tla- 
tomalli,  unraveled;  tla-chiuhtli,  a thing  done.  In  its 
most  general  sense  it  has  the  signification  of  by,  with, 
through,  or  because  of,  but  in  tlachia , to  observe,  from 
dr$,  tla  is  an  integral  part  of  the  root. 

A further  material  increase  of  verbs  under  t is  caused 
by  the  emphatic  prefix  te  (ta)  which  I take  to  be  some- 
times the  demonstrative  pronoun ; Sanskrit,  ta,  tad ; 
English,  that;  but  Olmos  pronounces  it  a syncopated 
form  of  tequi,  much,  greatly. 

In. — The  Mexican  language  has,  properly  speaking, 
no  article,  yet  tla  in  such  a word  as  tlachiuhtli  is 
translated  a,  a thing  done.  But  in  is  so  often  used 
clearly  as  an  article,  that  it  may  almost  be  said  to  assume 
that  function.  Yet  in  so  often  appears  superfluous  that 
the  reader  is  continually  at  a loss  to  determine  its  proper 
significance.  The  Spanish  grammarians  of  Mexican  are 
accustomed  to  assert  that  the  Mexicans  continually  inter- 
jected superfluous  words  into  their  discourse  simply  to 
fill  up,  so  to  speak,  and  round  a phrase.  The  poetry  of 
Nezahualcoyotl1  affords  numerous  examples  corroborating 
this  fact,  and  the  same  doubtless  may  be  said  of  harangues 
in  council.  But  poetry  in  all  languages  abounds  in 
figures,  inversions  and  pleonasm.  In  serious  prose,  in 
probably  has  always  a definite  use,  but  only  a Mexican 
knows  its  proper  use,  and  he  must  be  an  intelligent 


1 Daniel  G.  Brinton’s  edition,  Philadelphia,  1880. 


66  THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 

person.  It  would  be  profitless  to  dwell  on  the  subject 
here.  Its  place  is  in  a Mexican  grammar.  But  an  evi- 
dence of  the  extreme  antiquity  of  the  word  in,  in  its 
article  sense,  is  found  in  an  inscription  “in  Susinak,” 
1200  B.  o.1  In  modern  Persian  in  is  the  demonstrative 
this,  and  in  Mexican  inin  is  this;  inon , that.  This  on, 
by  the  way,  is  thoroughly  Saxon,  meaning  extension, 
further. 

Grammatical  gender. — English  is  a language  which  is 
strictly  logical  in  its  use  of  gender.  It  follows  nature,  the 
male  takes  a masculine  pronoun,  the  female  a feminine, 
and  all  that  is  neither  male  nor  female  is  neuter,  without 
exception.  Most  languages  are  arbitrary  in  this  respect. 
In  French,  a house,  maison,  is  referred  to  as  she,  while 
mar,  the  wall  of  the  house,  is  he.  Grammatical  gender  is 
a subtle  question  which  cannot  be  discussed  fully  here. 

Animate  and  inanimate. — The  Indian  languages 
usually  divide  all  things  into  two  classes,  “animate”  and 
“inanimate.”  Some  philologists  consider  this  classifica- 
tion as  an  evidence  of  great  age,  but  modern  Persian  has 
“rational”  and  “irrational,”  which  amounts  to  the  same 
thing,  and  this  distinction,  animate  and  inanimate,  is  some- 
times arbitrary.2  For  example,  in  Chippewa,  akkig,  a 
kettle,  is  an  animate  object.  In  Mexican,  only  animate 
nounshave  plurals,  as  ichcatl,  sheep;  plural  ichcame',  na- 
ualli,  a sorcerer;  plural  nanaualtin ; ticitl,  a doctor,  plural 
titici.  Spanish  has  had  some  influence  in  causing  inani- 
mate nouns  to  assume  plurals. 

Where  it  is  necessary  in  Mexican  to  distinguish  between 
male  and  female,  and  the  words  employed  do  not  in  them- 
selves indicate  sex,  oquiclitli  is  used  for  male  and  cihuatl 


1 Jacques  de  Morgan  in  Harper’s  Magazine,  May,  1905. 

2 See  Veblen,  Theory  of  the  Leisure  Class,  Introduction. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


67 


for  female,  as  oquiehmazatl,  a stag;  cihuamazatl,  a doe. 
The  same  method  prevails  in  modern  Persian,  as:  gav  i- 
nar,  a bull  (“man  cow”);  gav  i-mada,  a cow  (“woman 
cow  ” ) . 

Let  the  fact  be  emphasized  that  animate  and  inanimate 
are  not  synonymous  with  living  and  non-living  as  we 
understand  the  terms.  Primitive  man  endowed  all  things 
with  a relative  intrinsic  importance,  aside  from  any  nat- 
ural classification.  Thus  the  ground-squirrel  might  be 
considered  so  insignificant  as  to  be  placed  in  the  class  in- 
animate, while  the  camp  kettle,  by  reason  of  its  important 
place  in  domestic  economy,  was  raised  to  the  higher  clas- 
sification of  animate  things.  All  this  may  appear  very 
childish.  In  fact,  it  is  childish,  but  do  we  not  daily  see 
children  talk  to  their  playthings,  and  even  go  so  far  as  to 
reward  the  good  and  punish  the  bad?  But  primitive  man 
did  have  reasons  for  his  classification  since  his  animate 
things  were  important  according  to  his  knowledge  of  them. 

Dialects. — The  Nauatl  language  bears  internal  evidence 
of  differences  which  probably  result  from  dialectic  vari- 
ations due  to  the  mingling  of  tribes.  The  Spanish  lexi- 
cographers and  grammarians  speak  of  these  dialects  and 
agree  that  the  best  Nauatl  was  spoken  at  Tezcuco,  the 
Athens  of  Anahuac.  These  variations  no  doubt  originated 
in  Asia.  For  example  in  Mexican  we  have  telpochtli  or 
telpocatl,  a youth ; chiuhc  naui  or  chica  naui,  nine ; teuctli 
or  tecutli,  a chief.  The  name  of  the  Afghan  language  is 
Ptikhto  or  Pilshto.  A philologist  writes  me:  “philolo- 
gists require  uniformity.”  Quite  so!  But  they  do  not 
always  get  it. 

Thought  forms  and  style. — Most  students  of  Nauatl 
eulogize  the  beauty  and  expressiveness  of  that  language. 
The  word  nauatl  means,  sweet  sounding , clear , as  defined 


68 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


by  Molina.  The  language  has  at  times  a sonorousness  to 
be  compared  favorably  with  Latin.  But  I cannot  join  in 
unqualified  eulogy  of  the  Mexican  language.  It  is  lack- 
ing in  that  precision  which  makes  equivocation  almost 
impossible  in  Greek  or  Latin.  It  sometimes  defies  con- 
struction. Brinton,  on  this  point,  says  that  all  words  not 
directly  connected  with  the  verb  are  without  construction, 
but  this,  while  occasionally  true,  is  an  extreme  statement. 
The  following  sentence  is  a fair  example  of  the  capacity  of 
Mexican  syntax  to  express  sustained  thought: 

No  iquac  ipan  inin  omoteneuh  xihuitl  in  quixixitinique 

Also  then  in  this  aforesaid  year  (they)  demolished 
nohuian  ipan  Nueva  Espana  in  inteocal  ihuan  imixiptla 
everywhere  in  New  Spain  the  temples  and  images 
in  tlacatecollo  in  quimoteotiaya  ueuetque  tocolhuan, 
of  the  gods,  which  (they)  worshiped,  the  ancients,  our  ancestors; 
ye  yuh  matlacxiuitl  ipan  ce  xiuitl  moetzticate  in  matlacome 
already  ten  years  with  one  year  were  (here)  the  twelve 
San  Francisco  teopixque  inic  motlaxixinilique  nohuian, 
San  Franciscan  priests  when  (they)  destroyed  everywhere 

ye  yuh  caxtolli  on  ce 
[the  temples  and  images  of  the  gods]  already  fifteen  on  one 
xihuitl  oacico  in  Espanoles  in  iquac  tlaxixitin 
years  had  arrived  the  Spaniards  when  (was)  the  destruction 
nohuian. 

everywhere.  ( Annals , 1534.) 

The  first  clause  is  tautological  though  it  is  Cliimal- 
pahin’s  regular  formula.  “No  iquac  ipan  inin”  would 
express  the  same  idea  in  this  context  omitting  “omoten- 
euh xiuitl.” 

Parable  of  the  Woman  and  the  Lost  Coin  (Luke  15:8) 

Anozo  aquin  zoatlacatl  quipia  matlactli  tomin,  oquipolo 

Or  what  woman  has  ten  tomins  (she)  has  lost 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


69 


ce  tomin  amo  quixotlaltia  tlanextli  ihuan  qu’ichtoa 

one  tomin  (does)  not  sweep  (up)  the  dust  and  search 
in  calli  ihuan  necuitlahuiztilica  quitemoa  in  oc  quiaziz? 
the  house  and  diligently  it  seek  until  (she)  it  finds? 

A favorite  construction  puts  the  name  of  a place  in 
apposition  with  ompa  or  oncan,  there,  as: 

Ipan  inin  acito  xochiyaoyotl  in  ompa  Chalco-Atenco. 

Now  began  (the)  “war  of  flowers”  there  (at)  Chalco-Atenco. 

The  verb  ca,  to  be,  is  little  used  and  then  usually  either 
for  emphasis  or  to  denote  condition  rather  than  mere 
existence. 

Ca  fan  oc  inceltin,  in  macehualtin,  in  miquia. 

(It)  was  but  themselves  the  vassals  who  were  perishing. 

Redundancy  is  of  continual  occurrence. 

Ipan  inin  poliuhque  in  Cuanahuaca,  quinpehuato 

This  (year)  fell  the  Cuernavaca,  them -conquered 

in  Mexica. 
the  Mexicans. 

Nopiltz6,  nocuzqu6,  noquetzal  6,  otiyol, 

My  dear  son,  my  jewel,  my  plume,  thou  wert  begotten, 
otilacat,  otimotlalticpacquixitico. 

thou  wert  born,  thou  hast  arrived  on  earth. 

Death  of  Cauhtemoctzin  (Guatemozin),  introducing 
Spanish  words.  ( Annals , 1524.) 1 

Ye  yuhqui  ye  Christianoyotica  momiquilli,  cruz  imac 
Thus  Christian-like  he  died,  cross  in  hand 
quitlallique  auh  in  icxicrillos2  tepozmecatl,  inic 
(it)  they  placed,  also  foot-irons  (an)  iron-chain,  as  to 

canticaya  inic  pilcaticatca 3 pochcauhtitech. 

him  they  secured,  when  he  was  hanged,  (a)  silk  cotton  tree-on. 

i Hanged  in  Honduras  by  Cortez  for  alleged  conspiracy  against  the  Span- 
iards. 

2 Crillo  or  grillo,  a cricket,  Spanish;  in  the  plural,  fetters. 

3 For  the  precise  meaning  of  these  compounds  verbs  linked  by  ft,  which 
usually  gives  emphasis  or  increased  significance,  see  a Mexican  grammar.  Can 
(C’an)=qui-ana,  to  seize,  secure.  Pilca,  means  to  hang,  to  seize,  to  attach  to. 


70 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


The  Lord’s  Prayer  Analyzed 

Totatzin6  in  ilhuicac  timojetztica,  ma  yectenehualo  in 

Our  Father  heaven-in  thou  art  (rev.1)  May  be  revered  the 
motocatzin,  ma  huallauh  in  motlatocayotzin,  ma 

thy-name  (rev.1),  May  (it)  come  the  thy-kingdom  (rev.1),  May 
chihualo  in  tlalticpac  in  motlanequilitzin  in  yuh  chihualo 
be  done  earth-on  the  Thy-will  (rev.1)  as  (it)  is  done 
in  ilhuicac.  In  totlaxcal  momoztlae  totech  monequi  ma  axcan 
heaven-in.  Our  bread  daily  (as)  to  us  necessary  (is)  may  now 
xitechmomaquili,  ihuan  ma  xitechmopopolhuili  (rev.1) 
to  us  thou  give  (rev.1),  and  may  thou  us  forgive 
totlatlacol  in  yuh  tiquintlapopolhuia  intechtlatlacalhuia.  Ihuan 
our  sins  as  we  them  forgive  (others)  their  us-injuring.  And 
macamo  xitechmomacahuili  inic  amo  ipan  tihuetzizque  in 
never  permit  us  (rev.1)  that  (not)  there  we  may  go  (rush) 
teneyeyecoltiliztli,  ganye  ma  xitechmomaquixtili  (rev.1) 

into  (great)  temptation,  and  may  thou  us  not  let  come 
in  ihuicpa  in  amo  qualli. 
in  contact-with  (the)  not-good. 

1 There  is  a form  of  the  verb  which  is  called  “reverencial.”  It  is  indicated 
here  (rev.).  The  other  words  in  parentheses  are  supplied  to  complete  the  sense 
in  English.  In  such  situations  as  in  ilhuicac,  h is  silent  and  merely  separates 
vowels,  or  adds  stress  to  the  vowel  preceding  it,  as  il-ooi-cac.  This  word  is 
Sanskrit  rocanA,  heaven.  Tzin  is  honorific. 


CHAPTER  IX 


Individuality  of  Languages — Inflection— Accent  and  Rhythm — 
Repute  and  Disrepute  of  Words  — Ancient  versus  Modern 
Syntax. 

Individuality. — It  seems  a marvelous  fact  that  of  all 
of  the  myriads  of  millions  of  human  beings  who  exist  or 
have  existed  in  the  world,  no  two  individuals  are  exactly 
alike.  It  seems  equally  remarkable  that  after  the  lapse 
of  thousands  of  years,  nature  appears  to  produce  a dupli- 
cate of  some  former  individual.  For  example,  Gen.  U. 
S.  Grant  strikingly  resembled  a certain  Roman  emperor. 
Now  if  unity  of  human  speech  be  assumed,  as  a matter 
not  yet  sufficiently  settled  to  be  asserted  as  a fact,  how 
has  this  great  confusion  of  tongues  been  brought  about? 
There  are  in  the  world,  or  have  been  in  existence  in  past 
times,  perhaps  3,000  languages  and  dialects  (only  an 
approximation  not  capable  of  proof),  and  it  is  a well-known 
fact  that  every  language  is  foreign  to  every  other  language.1 
Even  languages  so  near  akin  as  Italian  and  Spanish  have 
comparatively  few  expressions  which  are  identical.  Any 
untraveled  native  of  the  United  States  who  will  make  a 
journey  to  Scotland  and  attempt  to  converse  with  the 
old-fashioned  people  of  the  Scotch  villages,  will  realize 
for  the  first  time  the  full  meaning  of  the  word  dialect. 
He  will  surely  return  satisfied  as  to  his  own  linguistic 
poverty.  And  yet  Scotch  is  only  a dialect  of  English, 
and  not  a very  pronounced  one  at  that.  English  and 
German  are  closely  akin,  but  an  English-speaking  person 

l Quoted  from  memory,  as  read  in  some  periodical.  I think  the  figures  by 
far  too  large,  but  some  place  it  at  4,000. 

71 


72 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


at  tlie  first  attempt  will  be  unable  to  comprehend  a single 
word  of  German.  We  have  all  met  people  who  under- 
stand German  or  French,  but  who  are  unable  to  speak 
those  languages.  I leave  these  remarkable  people  out  of  the 
reckoning.  Yet  both  these  languages  contain  numerous 
words  identical  with  the  English  words  for  the  same  things. 

Inflection. — What  then  causes  the  radical  difference 
which  exists  between  languages  ? If  the  Aryan  5,000  years 
ago  said  lubh,  love,  bhar,  bear,  and  the  American  today  says 
love,  bear,  which  though  spelled  differently,  may  have 
had  practically  the  same  pronunciation  as  the  ancient 
Sanskrit,  why  could  not  these  two  individuals  readily 
understand  each  other  if  they  got  together  today,  granting 
our  Aryan  could  rise  from  the  dead  by  a miracle?  It 
sometimes  happens  that  dress  makes  the  man;  it  is  always 
so  in  language.  The  Aryan  furnished  the  root  with 
strengthening  devices  and  pronoun  endings  longer  than 
the  root  itself  in  some  instances.1  If  he  said  something 
like  dray  ami,  dragdsi , drayati,  I drag,  thou  draggest, 
he  drags,  or  perhaps  very  clearly  drag-ha-mi,  his  speech 
could  not  by  any  possibility  sound  like  I dray;  but  when 
he  said  lekshi,  thou  lickest,  he  very  nearly  spoke  English. 
Expressing  thought-relations  by  means  of  adhering 
affixes  (and  infixes)  is  called  inflection,  when  the  word 
is  welded  into  an  inseparable  whole.  But  this  subject 
will  be  dealt  with  more  fully,  farther  on.  It  must  have 
taken  the  Sanskrit-speaking  people  fully  1,000  years  to 

1 In  its  general  sense,  Aryan  apparently  means  free  people,  superior  race. 
Max  Muller  first  used  the  word  in  a linguistic  sense.  There  has  been  much 
discussion  as  to  the  original  home  of  the  Aryans.  Sayce  inclines  to  northern 
Europe  and  cites  the  fact  that  the  Aryans  had  three  seasons,  that  the  words  ice 
and  snow  are  common,  also  the  fact  that  the  vocalic  system  of  Europe  is  older 
than  that  of  Sanskrit.  Dr.  Schrader  inclines  to  the  steppes  of  Southern  Europe 
and  notes  that  the  horse  was  known,  but  not  the  ass  or  the  camel,  lhering 
names  the  Hindu  Kush.  His  arguments  are  very  full,  lucid,  and  convincing, 
and  I think  there  can  be  little  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  his  conclusions. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


73 


build  up  their  marvelously  finished  system  of  inflection. 
It  has  taken  the  English-speaking  people  500  years  to 
strip  off  the  inflectional  system,  inherited  from  Anglo- 
Saxon.  Had  we  advanced  a little  farther,  and  adopted  a 
hieroglyphic  or  character  alphabet,  instead  of  a phonetic, 
and  become  an  isolated  people,  we  might  today  abide  in 
the  tents  of  the  Chinaman  so  far  as  language  goes.  He  is 
wholly  monosyllabic,  we  are  nearly  so  in  the  language  of 
every-day  life.  Instance  this  sentence:  I saw  the  boy 

light  the  straw  stack  with  a match  and  then  take  to  his 
heels  as  fast  as  he  could  run.  Here  twenty-three  mono- 
syllables move  along  with  a jerky,  unmelodious  sequence, 
which  is  characteristically  English. 

Why  did  inflection  fail  ? Because,  like  dress,  it  became 
too  elaborate  and  cumbersome.  Only  natives  could  use 
it  intelligibly.  Hordes  of  invading  foreigners  could 
not  master  the  new  tongue.  The  ignorant,  when  knowl- 
edge declined,  made  many  mistakes,  confused  forms,  and 
obscurity  was  the  result.  Circumlocutions  were  resorted 
to  as  an  aid,  which  resulted  in  corrupting  language  till 
finally  the  whole  fabric  crumbled  and  new  tongues 
sprang  up,  not  founded  entirely  on  roots,  but  partially  on 
the  d6bris  of  collapsed  polysyllabism.  But  there  is  no 
apparent  reason  why  a new  inflection  may  not  be  set  up 
in  the  course  of  time.  Our  English  possessive  is  a 
case  in  point.  John's  book  was  once  John , his  book.  I 
have  seen  it  written  so  in  my  own  time.  The  term  lingua 
rustica  is  a stalking-horse,  which  I believe  greatly  over- 
worked. It  is  employed  to  explain  the  differences  in 
vocabulary  and  syntax  between  the  Romance  languages 
and  Latin.1  I have  no  doubt  the  most  ignorant  Roman 

l Strange  differences  do  exist,  however,  side  by  side.  In  Java  the  women 
speak  a dialect  different  from  that  of  the  men.  “In  Sanskrit  plays  the  women 
spoke  Pali.”  Max  Muller,  Science  of  Language,  Vol.  II,  p.  44. 


74 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


readily  understood  Cicero  and  Cicero  could  understand 
him.  The  capacity  of  the  illiterate  to  employ  habitually 
and  correctly  a very  intricate  language  has  been  under- 
estimated. Instance  Chippewa  as  a lucid  example.  We 
may  as  well  be  prepared  to  believe  that  the  Vedic  Aryans 
who  had  never  heard  of  phonetics  possibly  understood 
fully  their  sentence  liaison  (see  p.  61). 

Accent  and  rhythm. — There  is  also  a rhythmic,  tonic 
and  accentual  individuality  in  language.  English  has  a 
vicious  habit  of  slurring  the  final  syllable  of  a word. 
Thus  the  word  “labor”  might  be  spelled  indifferently  bar, 
ber,  bir,  bor,  bur.  Compared  with  the  nicety  of  pro- 
nunciation prevailing  in  many  languages,  English  is 
indeed  a sloven,  but  this  habit  is  not  confined  to  English 
since  others  have  the  “neutral”  vowel.  Accent  is  usually 
difficult  to  acquire,  and  by  accent  I do  not  mean  pedantic 
pronunciation  merely.  There  is  a certain  indescribable, 
rhythmic  swing,  I had  almost  said  lilt,  which  every  lan- 
guage possesses,  and  which  can  be  acquired  only  by  careful 
attention  and  long  practice  in  speaking  with  those  to 
whom  the  language  is  mother  tongue.  It  is  this  subtle 
feature  of  the  French  tongue  which  brings  grief  to  so  many 
who  think  they  have  mastered  French  in  school,  but  who 
are  unable  in  France,  to  ask  the  servant  to  make  a fire  for 
them.  The  marked  undulatory  cadence  of  the  Spanish  is 
at  once  sonorous,  melodious,  and  baffling  to  a foreigner. 

Repute  and  disrepute. — Words,  like  human  beings, 
are  subject  to  many  vicissitudes.  Fortune  smiles  on  one 
and  frowns  on  another.  The  same  word  may  be  in  good 
standing  in  one  language  and  in  bad  repute  in  another. 
For  example,  take  pal:  ipal  nemoani  is  an  appellation  of 
god  in  Mexican ; the  English  pal  may  be  a thief.1  Again 

i Pal  and  cul-)y  are  no  doubt  borrowed  from  the  Gypsies  since  Romany  is  an 
Indo-Iranian  tongue. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


75 


there  are  vulgar  words  not  admitted  in  any  dictionary, 
whose  roots  lurk  in  speech  and  may  be  traced  back  to 
prehistoric  times.  They  will  never  die,  though  they  may 
be  denied  print.  Others  again  hover  on  the  ragged  edge 
of  respectability.  Some  words  are  refused  admittance  to 
so-called  Saxon  dictionaries  which  are  freely  admitted  to 
the  dictionaries  of  other  nations  less  prudish.  Then 
fashions  in  words  change,  and  a word  in  good  repute  now, 
may  be  fallen  very  low  a hundred  years  hence. 

Ancient  versus  modern  syntax.— Ancient  thought- 
forms  seem  disjointed  and  scanty  compared  with  the  ana- 
lytical methods  of  modern  tongues.  For  “I  wish  to  eat,” 
the  Mexican  says:  “I  wish,  I shall  eat.”  The  same  lack 
of  continuity  renders  the  Assyrian  uneven  and  discon- 
nected in  its  style.  In  Tupi  the  tenses  are  clumsily  pieced 
out  by  means  of  adverbs  marking  the  time  when  an  action 
occurs,  and  the  modern  value  of  connectives  is  not  clearly 
appreciated.  Thus:  “Peru  guba  ohaihu,  oci  ab6;”  “Peter 
his-father  loves,  his-mother  also ,”  for  the  more  precise 
and  elegant  “Peter  loves  his  father  and  his  mother.” 
But  in  its  “desinences”  (p.  63)  Mexican  possesses  a 
device  of  syntax  which  in  English  would  require  a sepa- 
rate word.  Thus:  in  aquin  o-aci-co,  “he  who  has  just 
arrived,”  where  co  indicates  an  action  completed  at  the 
present  moment  like  the  French:  II  vient  d’arriver. 

And  yet  the  significant  fact  remains  that  these  ancient 
tongues  are  often  competent  to  express  any  idea  which 
the  human  mind  is  capable  of  conceiving.  The  Chinese 
language,  though  apparently  indefinite  to  a foreigner,  is 
said  by  critical  students  of  the  language  to  be  wonderfully 
precise  and  that  equivocation  is  almost  impossible  unless 
it  be  intentional.  Clavijero  remarked  that  Nauatl  was 
capable  of  expressing  the  most  abstruse  conceptions  of 


76 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


the  Christian  religion  without  the  aid  of  a single  foreign 
word. 

The  chief  obstacle  in  adapting  such  languages  to  the 
needs  of  modern  civilization  is  the  lack  of  words  for  the 
multitude  of  things  of  modern  invention.  The  Mexicans, 
for  example,  had  no  horses  but  they  adapted  caballo,  the 
Spanish  name,  as  cauallo;  but  for  bridle  they  invented 
the  formidable  compound  cauallo-tepuz-tem-meca-yotl , 
literally,  “horse-iron-mouth-cord  [thing”]. 


CHAPTER  X 


Languages  as  to  Thought-Form — Incorporation  — Agglutina- 
tion — Classification  — Monosyllabism  — Inflection  — Rela- 
tive Merits — “Speak”  Conjugated  in  Five  Languages — 
Unity  of  Human  Speech — Persistence — Phonetic  Changes. 

Languages  have  been  classified  as  agglutinating,  like 
Turkish;  monosyllabic,  as  Chinese;  inflecting,  as  the  Latin 
and  all  the  Indo-European  group;  and  incorporating,  like 
some  of  the  American  languages. 

Incorporation. — —Mexican  has  been  described  as  a 
typical  incorporating  language.  What  is  incorporation? 
Professor  Henry  Sweet  says:  “If  we  define  inflection  as 
‘agglutination  run  mad,’  we  may  regard  incorporation  as 
inflection  run  madder  still:  it  is  the  result  of  attempting 
to  develop  the  verb  into  a complete  sentence.”1  In  the 
same  connection  he  says:  “Incorporation  is  nowhere  more 
logically  carried  out  than  in  Mexican.”  I think  there  is 
at  least  room  for  argument  here.  In  its  development, 
language  doubtless  followed  the  universal  law  of  nature 
that  the  concrete  must  precede  the  abstract.  A thing,  in 
other  words,  must  exist  before  we  can  speculate  on  its 
origin,  or  discuss  its  properties.  It  may  be  shown  that 
Mexican  is  scarcely  an  incorporating  language  at  all,  if 
indeed  there  really  be  such  a thing  as  an  incorporating 
language. 

Analysis  resolves  all  things  and  substances  eventually. 
Here  let  me  recall  a thought  of  Albert  Gallatin’s,  no  mean 
authority,  by  the  way,  who  has  a few  words  to  say  in  this 

1 Sweet,  History  of  Language,  p.  69.  It  is  manifest  that  no  such  conscious 
attempt  was  ever  made  by  any  people  in  the  growth  of  a living  language. 

77 


78 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


connection.  I give  the  substance  of  his  thought,  not  his 
exact  words.  He  sensibly  concludes  that  the  first  whites 
who  attempted  to  learn  the  language  of  the  Indians,  being 
guided  solely  by  sounds,  and  having  no  written  material 
to  exercise  the  eye  upon,  naturally  mistook  phrases  for 
words,  sometimes,  and  consequently  joined  together  par- 
ticles or  words  in  cases  where  thought-form  really  allowed 
a hiatus.  He  gives  some  examples.  Continuing  in  his 
line  of  thought,1  suppose  I say  in  colloquial  English: 
“Gimme  some  bread.”  Would  not  a foreigner  be  almost 
sure  to  understand  “gimme”  as  one  word?  The  Spaniard 
says:  digaseld,  tell  to  him  it,  but  Spanish  is  not  an  incor- 
porating language,  nor  is  it  agglutinating  beyond  this  one 
single  feature,  the  personal  pronouns,  in  so  far  as  I can 
recall.  When  the  Spaniard  coined  the  word,  “correve- 
dile,”  “run-see-tell-it,”  for  talebearer,  he  clipped  old  words 
to  make  the  new.  Does  he  compound,  incorporate,  or 
agglutinate  ? 

In  fact  the  only  feature  of  Mexican  syntax  which  can 
be,  strictly  speaking,  classed  as  incorporative  is  the  curious 
prepositive  object-pronoun  (chap.  vii).  I will  take  Sweet’s 
own  example,  nic-qua,  I it  eat,  where  c (qui)  is  the  incor- 
porated pronoun.  Next  he  considers  “ ni-ncikaka ,”  “I 
meat  eat.”  The  Mexican  spelling  is  “ qua ” which  is  not 
mentioned  here  as  a correction  of  Professor  Sweet’s  spell- 
ing, since  he  employs  a uniform  phonetic  system  in  his 
admirable  book.  “I  meat  eat”  illustrates  a very  common 
form  of  expression  in  Mexican.  I admit  that  the  dropping 
of  tl,  the  termination  of  naca tl,  meat,  is  an  argument  in 
favor  of  the  theory  of  incorporation,  but  there  must  always 
be  an  interval,  be  it  ever  so  slight,  between  the  noun  object 

i “ Introduction  to  Hale’s  Indians  of  Northwest  America,”  Transactions 
American  Ethnological  Society , 1848. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


79 


and  the  verb,  and  the  thematic  noun  in  Mexican  had  a 
general  collective  quality  like  the  Greek  neuter,  as  for 
example  Azteca  from  Azteca-tl  the  singular.  This  hiatus 
is  distinctly  marked  at  times  as  colli  house,  but  no -calh, 
my  house.1 

Mexican  grammarians  say  that  these  clippings,  as  the 
tl  of  nacatl,  are  made  largely  for  purposes  of  brevity  and 
euphony.  But  they  always  occur  at  a natural  cleavage 
point,  if  we  assume  an  original  agglutination  of  particles. 
They  cannot  be  compared  at  all  with  such  mere  mechanical 
devices  as  the  / in  the  French  sentence : A-/-il  fini  ? I think 
the  cause  of  this  usage  lies  farther  back  than  brevity  or 
euphony.  Savages  had  plenty  of  time  to  pronounce  entire 
words  and  were  like  ourselves  scarcely  conscious  of  euphony. 

In  Cree  the  noun  incorporates  an  objective  pronoun- 
p ostpositive,  as:  mdokooma,  knife;  net  oo-mookooman-rn, 
I have  a knife.2  But  the  Aryan  verb  incorporates  its  pro- 
noun subject,  as  leg-o,  I read. 

Professor  Sweet  says,  furthermore,  that  ni,  in  ra'-naca- 
qua3  is  additional  evidence  of  incorporation.  Why?  It  is 
true  that  it  is  always  printed  so,  and  ni  is  called  insepar- 
able by  the  grammarians,  while  ne  and  neuatl  are  called 
“separable”  forms  for  the  pronoun  I.  The  question  is 
merely  one  of  sounds  which  coalesce  readily  or  the  con- 
trary as  the  case  may  be.  “Igo,”  “yougo,”  might  look 
like  incorporation  or  synthesis,  while  “one  goes”  and 
“ Edward  goes,”  would  remain  analytic.  There  are  cases 
where  ni  does  syntactically  stand  alone;  ra'-tlatoani  is  an 
example.  In  such  cases  the  copulative  verb  be  is  omitted 
universally  in  Mexican.  Inserted,  it  would  read  ni  ca 


1 Olmos,  Grammar  Nahuatl,  p.  200. 

2Howse’s  phonetics  are  English;  “Italian,”  net  u-mukuman-in. 
3 Sweet,  History  of  Language , p.  70. 


80 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


tlatoani,  I am  a chief,  though  this  would  not  be  correct 
Mexican  since  ca  is  not  properly  be,  but  the  Spanish  estar. 

Mexican  syntax  is  synthetic,  not  incorporating.  Its 
postpositives  are  as  readily  detached  as  is  ward  in  the 
English  word  homeward.  But  it  is  by  no  means  so  com- 
plex in  grammatical  structure  as  is  Algonquin  or  Japanese, 
for  example.  The  opinion  of  Clavijero  previously  referred 
to,  who  found  it  capable  of  expressing  every  mystery  and 
subtlety  of  the  Christian  religion  without  borrowing  a 
single  word,  is  surely  a strong  testimonial  for  its  power  of 
expressing  sustained  thought. 

Agglutination. — A few  lines  will  suffice  for  this  subject. 
I mention  it  here  partly  to  render  my  book  symmetrical 
but  chiefly  to  show  that  Mexican  is  not  agglutinating. 
All  the  earliest  systems  of  writing  appear  to  have  been 
syllabic.  Sanskrit  and  Japanese  are  so  today,  as  well  as 
Cherokee  in  the  United  States.  The  following  sentence 
from  King’s  Assyrian  Grammar  will  illustrate  the  system 
of  syllabic  writing;  the  hyphen  separates  syllables,  the 
words  are  spaced:  i-na  di-ma-a-ti  a-lul  pag-ri-su-nu ; 
ina  dimati  alul  pagri-sunu;  on  poles  I hung  corpses-their. 
Stratonike  (wife  of  Antioch  us  Soter)  is  spelled  (in  As- 
syrian) As-ta-ar-ta-ni-ik-ku ; Antipatros,  An-ti-pa-at- 
ru-su. 

The  repetition  of  a vowel  did  not  necessarily  mean  it 
was  to  be  pronounced  twice.  Remember  the  unit  was  a 
syllable  instead  of  a letter.  Thus  di-ma-a-ti,  simply  spells 
dimati  with  the  a long.  This  system  of  writing  is  per- 
haps an  additional  evidence  of  the  agglutinative  character 
of  all  languages  at  first.  Turkish  is  a good  example  of  an 
agglutinating  language.  It  tacks  on  particle  after  particle 
in  a most  astonishing  fashion.  Here  is  an  example:  Sev 
is  the  root-word  for  love;  sevmek  is  the  infinitive  to  love; 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


81 


sevmemek,  is  not  to  love;  seve/memek,  is  not  to  be  able 
to  love;  sevdermek,  is  to  cause  to  love;  sevdirmemek,  is 
not  to  cause  to  love;  sevderehmemek,  is  not  to  be  able  to 
cause  to  love.  In  this  linguistic  sandwich  the  infinitive  is 
practically  expanded  into  a sentence. 

Classification. — Just  what  fixes  a language  in  a given 
class  is  not  easy  to  tell.  In  fact  there  is  no  exact  line  which 
divides  any  one  class  from  any  other  class.  Languages 
constantly  defy  classification.  According  to  Max  Muller 
a Turanian  language  should  be,  not  only  agglutinating, 
but  terminational.  But  the  Rev.  H.  Roberts  inclines  to 
class  Kliassi  as  an  agglutinating  language  and  says  that 
its  particles  are  without  exception  prepositive.  For 
example,  the  verb  lait  means  free;  pyl-lait,  to  make  free; 
jing -pyl-lait,  freedom  or  liberation.  Yet  this  ancient 
language  seems  to  be  Turanian  according  to  Mr.  Roberts, 
though  it  w7ould  appear,  from  the  example,  to  be  mono- 
syllabic, rather.5 

Since  the  American  languages  are  classed  as  incorpo- 
rating it  may  be  interesting  to  compare  a Selisli  ( Flathead) 
verb  with  the  Turkish.  Tneskoli 2 (operor)  to  do,  to  be 
busy,  is  the  primitive;  kol  is  the  root;  tneskol,  the  form 
in  composition;  ieskolm,  active  causative,  I advance  a 
thing,  I do;  tnesklkoli,  reduplication,  I do  several  things; 
tneleskoli,  iterative,  I do  it  again ; tneskolmluisi,  frequenta- 
tive, I do  it  frequently;  tneselkok’li,  diminished  action,  I 
work  lightly  or  easily;  kaeskolstegui,  reciprocal,  we  work 
to  our  mutual  advantage;  tneseskolmisti,  reflective,  I 
fashion  myself;  or  tneskolsuti,  I work  for  myself. 

1 Khassi  is  classed  by  Mr.  Roberts  in  the  indefinite  group,  “ Sub  Himalayan.” 
He  estimated  that  it  is  spoken  by  about  250,000  people  who  inhabit  an  isolated 
district  of  Assam.  The  language  has  only  lately  been  reduced  to  writing.  [Actual 
population,  about  175,000.] 

2 Tnes , pronounce  t«n6s.  Kol  is  possibly  identical  with  Sanskrit,  kar , to  make, 
to  do ; compare  the  Turkish  sev  with  Sanskrit  sii,  to  generate ; Mexican,  tla-go-tla, 
to  love. 


82 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Monosyllabism. — Monosyllabic  languages  or  isolating 
languages  may  be  adequately  represented  by  Chinese,  in 
which  every  word  is  theoretically  a monosyllable.  Some 
of  these  primitives  are  also  idea  words,  that  is,  they  express 
an  idea  in  themselves  as  jin,  a human  being,  but  specifically, 
a man;  fu-jin  is  woman,  and  ur-jin,  child.  Hence  most 
Chinese  words  logically  are  not  monosyllables.  The  early 
use  of  arbitrary  ideographs  or  characters  instead  of  a flex- 
ible alphabet,  has  arrested  the  development  of  Chinese  and 
fossilized  the  language. 

Prof.  Henry  Sweet  in  speaking  of  Chinese  syntax  makes 
some  statements  (also  made  by  others)  which  lead  to  con- 
clusions I am  unable  to  reach.  I should  like  to  copy  them 
in  full,  but  can  only  give  the  substance  here.1  He  dis- 
misses peremptorily  (and  properly)  the  notion  that  Chinese 
is  an  analytical  language  which  has  outstripped  even  Eng- 
lish in  freeing  itself  of  inflections  and  returning  to  a 
monosyllabic  state.  He  further  says  that  there  exists 
indisputable  internal  evidence  in  the  language  itself  that 
it  was  once  polysyllabic.  These  two  statements  appear  to 
me  contradictory.  If  the  Chinese  was  once  polysyllabic, 
it  is  safe  to  assume  that  it  had  for  “relation”  signs  either 
the  system  of  terminations  known  as  inflection  or  the  other 
system  known  as  postpositive  which  is,  after  all,  a species 
of  inflection.  In  fact  Chinese  employs  in  practice,  both 
prefixes  and  affixes  today,  which  are  in  no  way  different 
in  function  from  similar  particles  in  Magyar,  Assyrian, 
Mexican,  and  Japanese,  instance  ti,  the  genitive  sign  in 
Chinese,  or  mun  the  plural  sign.  Ti  is  employed  in  the 
same  way  in  Assyrian  and  Mexican,  and  is  our  English  ty. 
In  fact  such  particles  whether  separate  or  agglutinated  are 
absolutely  necessary  to  every  language.  For  example, 

1 Sweet,  History  of  Language,  p.  74. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


83 


tsai  means  in,  on;  niii , interior ; wai,  exterior;  tsai  Yang- 
tze niii,  inside  the  house;  tsai  fang-tze  wai,  outside  the 
house.  Along  with  the  idea-words,  like  boy,  dog,  wheat, 
book,  there  must  be  relation  or  form -words  like  the  Chinese 
ti,  the  English  of,  the  Mexican  co,  or  the  Japanese  ga,  the 
sign  of  the  nominative  case.  It  seems  impossible  that 
Chinese  could  ever  have  been  polysyllabic.  Some  vestiges 
of  the  system  would  surely  remain  such  as  ward,  in  the 
English  word,  hometrarcZ. 

The  basis  for  this  theory  of  the  former  polysyllabism  of 
Chinese  lies  in  the  fact  that  certain  letters  have  disappeared 
from  Tibetan  words  within  comparatively  recent  times.1 
Tibetan  is  a monosyllabic  language,  in  the  class  with 
Chinese  and  certain  letters  in  literary  Tibetan  are  silent. 
Contemporary  Chinese  inscriptions  indicate  that  they  were 
sounded  in  the  sixth  century,  a.  d.  It  is  said  that  in  certain 
parts  of  the  country  they  are  still  pronounced.  W.  D. 
Whitney  holds  this  as  important  if  proved  true  and  it 
appears  to  be  true.2  But  a particle  may  perish  without 
alfecting  the  monosyllabism  of  a language,  and  it  seems 
to  me  the  cases  are  not  parallel.  Suppose,  for  example, 
the  Chinese  sign  11  ti"  of  the  genitive  case  should  become 
useless  through  juxtaposition  or  some  other  device  which 
rendered  ti  superfluous.  Then  ti  might  perish,  first  the 
vowel,  the  t lingering  for  awhile  as  a useless  silent  letter, 
a parasite  on  the  head  word,  until  it,  too,  would  disappear. 
Take  our  English  possessive,  “John’s  book,”  once  “John 
his  book.”  It  would  be  a parallel  case  to  say  that  s was 
once  a syllable  of  the  word  John’s.  If  the  case  were  to 
go  a step  farther,  and  sometime  in  the  future  the  posses- 

1 According  to  A.  H.  Sayce,  Chinese  has  undergone  serious  phonetic  decay 
(Assyrian  Lectures,  p.  153).  Max  Muller,  however,  maintains  the  contrary,  Science 
of  Language,  Vol.  I,  p.  50. 

2 Cf,  Keane,  Ethnology , pp.  207  ff. 


84 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


sive  were  indicated  by  an  adjective,  “the  John  book,”  the 
philologist  of  that  day  might  claim  that  English  never  had 
any  other  but  the  adjective  possessive.  Lacouperie 
appears  to  have  proved  beyond  doubt  that  Tibetan  now 
monosyllabic  was  once  polysyllabic.1  Hence  the  inference 
that  the  same  thing  has  occurred  in  Chinese.  But  admit- 
ting this  fact  we  have  only  illuminated  a period  in  linguistic 
development.  The  beginning  and  the  end  in  the  growth 
of  language  can  never  be  positively  determined.  Granting 
that  a language  is  now  monosyllabic,  English  is  nearly  so, 
in  the  past  it  may  have  been  polysyllabic  as  we  know 
English  to  have  been,  and  we  also  know  that  English  was 
originally  built  around  monosyllabic  Aryan  roots  which 
we  dare  not  ignore  simply  because  we  cannot  account  for 
their  origin  or  assign  a date  to  their  beginnings.  Tibetan 
has  apparently  undergone  some  extraordinary  phonetic 
changes,  and  the  same  may  prove  true  of  Chinese,  but  I 
know  of  no  adequate  scientific  study  of  Chinese  phonology 
and  its  history,  which  will  decide  the  matter. 

Inflection.  — Inflecting  languages  are,  for  example,  San- 
skrit, Greek,  Latin,  French,  Italian,  Spanish,  and  German. 
They  are  so  well  known  as  to  need  no  special  treatment 
here,  beyond  the  remark  that  the  conjugation  of  the  Mexi- 
can verb  (p.  62)  places  that  language  indisputably  in 
the  inflected  class.  Other  American  languages  belong 
there.  For  example,  Chippewa  is  a marvel  of  inflection, 
beside  which  ancient  Greek  is  not  difficult,  and  its  vowel 
changes  are  developed  harmoniously  and  symmetrically. 

For  a long  time  the  tendency  in  human  speech  has  been 
to  discard  synthetic  forms  for  analytic.  Thus  instead  of 
expressing  the  pronominal  idea  in  the  verb  ending  as  in 

l See  article  “Tibet,”  Encyclopaedia  B ritannica,  by  A.  Terriende  Lacouperie. 
Also  Vol.  XVIII,  pp.  774,  779,  article  “Philology,”  by  W.  D.  Whitney. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


85 


Latin  leg-o,  I read,  we  say  in  English  “I-read.”  The 
Roman  youth  said  to  his  sweetheart,  amo  te,  I love  you. 
There  was  no  need  of  the  analytic  form  ego  amo  te,  unless 
he  wished  to  be  emphatic.  Both  forms  of  expression  have 
their  advantages.  The  analytic  is  simpler  but  the  syn- 
thetic may  be  very  concise  and  expressive.  The  inflec- 
tional method  required  the  memorizing  of  such  a multi- 
tude of  forms  built  upon  the  same  root  that  it  seems 
incredible  that  the  unlettered  could  have  recognized  all 
of  them  as  cognates.  It  is  more  probable  that  to  most 
people  they  were,  in  their  disguised  aspect,  separate  forms. 
For  example,  would  it  not  require  a scholar  to  analyze  the 
Sanskrit  compound  Hitopadega,  “given  for  instruction” 
as  derived  from  dhci,  to  give  -j-  upci,  for,  -j-  dig  to  point 
out,  guide  instruct?  It  surely  would.  Did  the  illiterate 
Greek  recognize  the  root  dav  in  reOvdn o??  It  is  to  be 
doubted.1 

The  relative  merits  of  the  two  systems  may  be  briefly 
shown  in  a conjugation  of  the  present  tense  of  the  verb 
speak,  talk,  in  five  languages. 


LATIN 

dico,  I speak 
dicis,  thou  speakest 
dicit,  he  speaks 

ITALIAN 

parlo 

parli 

parla 


dicimus,  we  speak 
dicistis,  you  speak 
dicunt,  they  speak 

parliamo 

parlate 

parlano 


Both  Latin  and  Italian,  as  may  be  seen,  have  six  dis-. 
tinct  forms  and  pronouns  are  not  necessary. 

. l In  this  connection  I may  suggest  that  grammar  existed  and  was  taught 
long  before  the  art  of  writing  was  in  existence.  How  else  could  such  involved 
tongues  as  Greek,  Sanskrit,  Quichua,  and  Chippewa  have  been  preserved  from 
corruption  and  final  dissolution?  It  is  said  that  the  aborigines  of  America  gave 
their  children  at  an  early  age  careful  instruction  in  grammar.  Hand  Book  of 
Indians , Vol.  I,  “Education,”  p.  HI. 


86 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


GERMAN 


ich  rede 
du  redest 
er  redet 


wir  reden 
ihr  redet 
sie  reden 


ENGLISH 


I speak 
you  speak 
he  speaks 


we  speak 
you  speak 
they  speak 


German  has  four  forms  out  of  a possible  six.  English 
has  but  two  forms,  a veritable  pauper,  and,  since  pronouns 
are  necessary,  it  might  as  well  have  but  one  form. 


Here  there  appears  to  be  but  one  form,  but  there  are 
really  two  since  the  lengthening  of  the  final  vowel  of  the 
plural  to  distinguish  it  from  the  singular  is  really  inflec- 
tion. It  will  be  observed  that  the  third  person  singular 
and  plural  has  no  pronoun,  a feature  which  is  frequently 
found  in  Indian  languages. 

Inflected  speech  was  undoubtedly  built  up  in  the  first 
place  by  the  gradual  agglutination  of  independent  signifi- 
cant particles.  But  when  these  particles  began  to  lose 
meaning  to  the  masses  of  the  people  and  a host  of  forms1 
required  precision  in  grammar  and  nicety  in  pronuncia- 
tion to  avoid  equivocation,  and  the  old  process  began  over 
of  piecing  out  the  meaning  with  other  words  which  became 
finally  auxiliaries,  adverbs,  or  prepositions. 

Unity  of  human  speech.  — The  reader  has  doubtless 
observed  in  these  pages  from  time  to  time,  that  the  origi- 

1 The  possible  number  of  mutations  of  a Greek  verb  was  about  570;  of  a Latin 
verb  171.  I quote  from  memory,  having  lost  my  reference.  I confess  the  total 
surprised  me. 


MEXICAN 


ni-tlatoa 

ti-tlatoa 

tlatoa 


ti-tlatoa 

anmo-tlatoa 

tlatoa 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


87 


nal  unity  of  human  speech  is  tacitly  assumed  though 
nowhere  directly  asserted.  Positive  declarations  on  this 
subject  are  hazardous.  The  prehistoric  period  of  man’s 
development  is,  in  all  probability,  of  very  much  longer 
duration  than  the  historical.  To  postulate  prehistoric 
speech  is  impossible.  It  is  also  very  difficult  for  the 
ethnologist  to  explain  scientifically  the  differentiation 
which  resulted  in  such  extreme  physical  and  mental  types, 
as  the  negro  and  the  white  man  exhibit.  It  is  possible 
that  a branch  of  primitive  man  may  have  for  many  thou- 
sands of  years  remained  stationary  in  Africa,  while  his 
more  favored  brethren  advanced  steadily  to  the  high 
intellectual  standing  of  the  Aryan  nations.  We  have  seen 
how  languages  may  exist  unchanged  for  great  periods  of 
time,  and  a like  arrest  of  physical  and  mental  development 
may  be  assumed  as  not  unreasonable.1 

Persistence. — This  may  be  a fitting  place  to  refute  the 
nonsense  so  often  repeated  about  the  rapid  changes  in 
the  languages  of  America.  I have  read  repeatedly  that 
the  vocabulary  of  these  languages  may  change  so  rapidly 
as  to  render  the  tongue  unintelligible,  within  a lifetime. 
In  that  case  the  grandfather  could  not  converse  with  his 
grandchildren  with  any  satisfaction.  I call  this  plain 
nonsense;  it  might  take  a stronger  term  to  express  the 
case  properly.  We  have  seen  that  it  takes  hundreds  of 
years  to  make  material  changes  in  syntax,  and  we  have 
seen  that  syntax  is  no  more  enduring  than  word  forms. 
Anyone  who  will  study  the  words  father,  mother,  house, 
fire,  cow,  dog,  will  at  once  realize  their  great  antiquity. 
An  exception  to  this  statement  may  be  made  in  the  case 
of  some  non-Aryan  tribes  for  special  reasons.  John 

l Finnish  has  remained  practically  without  change  for  1,600  years;  Sweet, 
History  of  Language , p.  118.  Also  see  statement  of  Joseph  Edkins,  footnote  3, 


88 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Fraser,  in  “An  Australian  Language,”  says  that  the 
aborigines  of  Australia  were  accustomed  to  cease  using 
any  word  found  in  the  name  of  a dead  man,  immediately 
upon  his  death.  If  a man  were  called  “Fell  in  the 
Water,”  a new  word  must  be  found  for  water  after  his 
demise.  The  reason  of  this  curious  fact  was  that  they 
believed  a mention  of  the  name  of  the  defunct,  would 
disturb  his  spirit,  which  was  capable  of  harming  the 
living. 

Phonetic  changes. — One  fact  will  surely  arrest  the  at- 
tention of  every  observant  reader.  There  are  usually  two 
or  three  words  for  the  commonest  things.  This  might 
appear  to  be  in  favor  of  the  argument  that  language  had 
original  development  from  several  independent  centers, 
and  that  a subsequent  mingling  gave  the  multiplication 
of  words  like  tlacatl,  avr/p,  avdptoiro^,  mas , homo,  vir  for 
man;  deus,  bog,  and  god;  vig,  chan  ( kshem , ham),  cal, 
and  cab  for  house.  These  independent  words  might  have 
been  scattered  and  commingled  by  the  incessant  migra- 
tions of  mankind  and  the  mingling  of  different  races 
through  wars  and  conquest.  But  the  fact  that  these 
roots  do  not  appear  to  be  in  the  least  localized,  as,  for 
example,  pilli,  boy,  found  in  Assyria  and  Mexico,  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  all  mankind  were  one,  until  after 
definite  articulate  human  speech  was  firmly  established.1 
But  very  strange  permutations  may  occur  through  pho- 
netic changes.  Thus  Fraser  derives  ka,  eat,  and  edo, 
eat,  from  the  same  root,  k and  t being  equivalents.2  The 
three  words  given  here  for  god,  for  example,  are  really 
not  roots.  They  are  probably  all  derivatives. 

1 There  are  Hebrew  roots  in  Khassi  which  the  presence  of  Arabic  will  not 
explain.  Introduction  to  Khassi  Grammar,  by  H.  Roberts.  The  Ainu  of  Japan 
have  been  shown  to  be  Aryan  in  speech  by  Rev.  John  Batchelor,  The  Nation, 
September  12,  1907,  “Notes.” 

2 An  Australian  Language,  Introduction. 


• THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


89 


These  independent  forms  may  all  have  been  developed 
in  the  same  community  through  figures  of  speech.  But 
figurative  language,  as  a rule,  is  plainly  traceable  to  its 
origin,  and  simile  is  usually  more  verbose  than  the  origi- 
nal, as:  “ship  of  the  desert,”  a camel;  “king  of  beasts,” 
a lion;  “lord  of  creation,”  man.  When  we  read  that  the 
Arabs  have  some  fifty  words  for  camel,  we  must  allow  for 
the  imagination  of  the  writer,  as  well  as  of  the  Arab.  In 
fact  Tien  gives  but  three;  naqa(t),  ebl,  jamal.  Sacroug 
gives  two:  gamal,  naka,  a she-camel,  and  naca-tl  is  the 
Mexican  word  for  meat.1  (The  g of  Egypt  is  j in  Syria.) 

Max  Muller,  in  a moment  of  doubt,  practically  asserts 
that  we  have  no  right  to  say  that  the  Latin  quatuor  is  a 
cognate  of  the  Sanskrit  catUr  (four),  or  that  the  Greek 
tettares  is  in  any  sort  of  relationship  to  either,  and  he 
names  other  examples  to  support  his  idea  of  the  moment. 
But  there  is  an  explanation  that  is  convincing  for  the 
relationship  existing  between  catur  and  quatuor  (see 
“Phonology,”  chap.  xi).  Phonetic  laws  apply  uniformly, 
and  operate  through  long  periods  of  time,  but  not  in 
every  case.  We  must  recognize  phonetic  “sports”  just 
as  we  recognize  sports  in  plant  life. 

A novice  in  comparative  philology  would  scout  the 
idea  that  any  relationship  exists  between  Aryan  ekwo, 
the  Sanskrit  agva,  horse,  the  Latin  equus,  and  the  Persian 
asj ).  But  the  laws  of  phonetics  incontestably  prove  a 
common  origin.  If  we  were  to  place  in  the  same  cate- 
gory “hack,”  “whoa,”  and  “get  up,”  a smile  would  be 
excited,  and  yet  they  are  perhaps  all  from  “a£va,”  hack 
being  the  first  syllable  and  whoa  the  last.  Wlioa  is 
said  to  be  a “horse  call”  from  China  round  the  globe  to 

l Gabriel  Sacroug,  Traveller's  Interpreter , or  Arabic  without  a Teacher , 
Cairo,  1874. 


90 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


California.  In  parts  of  France  people  say  “tip”  for  “get 
up,”  the  Utes  of  Colorado  say  the  same.  The  latter 
phrase  probably  should  be  “get  ep.”  No  farmer  says 
“get  up”  until  after  he  has  passed  under  the  influence  of 
the  pedagogue.  The  real  meaning  then  was  originally 
doubtless  “get  horse,”  “go  horse,”  since  “up”  (ep)  may 
be  traced  through  hippos  to  the  same  source.  I have 
thought  this  paragraph  worthy  of  print  even  though  it 
have  no  better  warrant  than  “travellers’  tales.” 

If  we  assume  the  unity  of  human  speech,  as  we  doubt- 
less shall  be  obliged  to  do  in  the  future,  we  may  then  be 
justified  in  assuming  word  relationships  which  cannot  be 
proved  absolutely  by  any  known  laws  of  derivation. 


CHAPTER  XI 


Phonology. — General  Remarks — V owels  — Dentals — Gutturals 
(the  kg-q  and  kg-s  Sound  shifts) — Vocalic  Consonants  — 
The  Place  of  Mexican — Labials — Line  of  Descent  and 
Assimilation — The  Saltillo. — Accent. 

General  remarks. — Heretofore  I have  given  no  more 
attention  to  phonetics  than  what  I deemed  necessary  to 
explain  the  case  in  point  and  to  support  the  thesis  which 
is  the  common  origin  of  the  Mexican  and  the  Indo-Euro- 
pean group  of  languages.  The  remarks  in  this  chapter 
are  merely  a brief  sketch  of  elementary  principles,  since 
phonology  is,  in  itself,  a subject  sufficient  to  fill  a large 
volume.1 

We  have  all  doubtless  wondered  at  the  formidable  com- 
pound consonants  of  Sanskrit,  Greek,  and  Arabic,  such  as 
kh  in  Me  dive,  sheikh,  bh  in  Magava  and  combinations 
like  phthisic,  pteron.  It  is  not  easy  to  say  always  just 
how  the  ancients  pronounced  these  combinations.  One 
thing  is  reasonably  sure,  none  of  the  letters  were  silent. 
In  bh  the  h may  have  been  a full  aspiration  or  the  briefest 
possible  stop  and  not  a distinct  aspiration  like  our  Eng- 
lish h.  Arabic  kh  is  neither  A;  nor  h but  both.  I confess 
that  I cannot  pronounce  it  exactly  as  an  Arab  does.  It 
is  a very  deep  guttural,  harsher  and  more  throat  filling 
than  German  or  Scotch  ch,  or  Spanish  j.  Ask  a German 
to  pronounce  lcnabe.  You  will  notice  that  he  brings  out 
the  k distinctly  with  a suggestion  of  a vowel  between  the 

1 See  the  author’s  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology  and  Gray,  Indolranian 
Phonology , for  special  information  bearing  on  the  subject  of  this  book,  also  Tol- 
man,  Old  Persian  Inscriptions. 


91 


92 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


k and  the  n.  There  appears,  however,  to  be  no  trace  of  a 
vowel  in  the  Arabic  kh  as  there  is  in  knabe.  Pteron  was 
once  *peteron;  phthisic  was  probably  *phethisic. 

As  man  became  more  civilized,  there  was  doubtless  a 
tendency  to  tone  down  speech  and  simplify  harsh  com- 
pound combinations.  Arabic  and  Quichua  are  still  marked 
by  harsh  consonants.  The  guttural-palatal  series  is  today, 
in  most  languages,  g,  k (c),  (/<  a survival),  German  ch,  j. 
The  labial  series  is  b,  p,  f,  v,  w.  The  dental  series  is  d,  t, 
th  (in  thing),  th  (in  that).  The  liquids  are  1,  r.  The 
sibilants  are  s,  z,  ts,  tz,  zli,  j(dzj),  ch,  sh.  The  nasals  are 
m and  n. 

The  general  tendency,  apparently,  is  to  crowd  sounds 
forward  in  utterance,  especially  in  American  languages. 
Thus  Mexican  has  lost  y entirely;  k only  remains.  The 
Sanskrit  q (once  k)  becomes:  c (fc),  ch,  s,  sh,  x,  in  Mexican. 
Apparently  an  impulse  for  an  easier  sound  has  dropped  b, 
beginning  the  series  with  p,  so  that  the  series  consists  of 
p,  u sometimes,  which  is  zero  in  the  series.  Of  the 
liquids,  r is  either  lost  or  becomes  l,  and  l is  never  initial. 
In  the  dental  series,  Mexican  has  lost  d and  th,  only  t 
remains,  but  Sanskrit  d,  dh,  become  ch,  dhi  = chi,  palatal 
or  sibilant,  and  it  may  be  that  t also  becomes  a sibilant  or 
the  equivalent  ch. 

But  there  is  no  synchronological  uniformity  in  conso- 
nant mutation,  exhibited  in  the  languages  of  the  world. 
Grimm’s  law  is  of  universal  but  not  uniform  and  synchro- 
nous application,  hence  it  must  not  be  strained  because 
the  same  language  may  offer  side  by  side  words  which  do 
not  conform  as  Greek  /caw,  7 rw?. 

But  we  see  Mexican  losing  g entirely,  which  English 
retains  in  full  vigor.  Aryan  k becomes  h (ch)  in  English 
as  cvanis,  dog,  English  houn-d,  but  we  have  English  chin 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


93 


and  Mexican  can-tli.  English  is  older  in  one  respect 
than  New  High  German,  having  one  less  “sound-shift.”1 

The  post-consonantal  “aspiration”  of  Sanskrit  is  lost 
in  most  of  the  other  Aryan  languages,  or  more  properly 
speaking,  it  is  peculiar  to  Sanskrit,  and  is  less  often  found 
in  Greek  as:  bhar,  carry;  ph6ro,  Greek;  fero,  Latin;  bear, 
English;  Mexican,  pal;  bah,  *bagh,  Greek,  7 rd^u?;  Mex- 
ican, ua-paua;  English,  bough;  bhratr,  brother;  phr&ter, 
Greek;  frater,  Latin;  bruder,  German;  dih,  *dhigh,  rub; 
Greek,  6i<yw,  Mexican,  ta-taca,  scratch;  English,  dough. 

As  to  vowels,  the  Mexican  is  rich,  in  fact  nauatl  means 
sweet-sounding,  while  English  is,  to  say  the  least,  not  a 
euphonious  language  and  is,  to  tell  the  truth,  weak  in 
vowel  sounds  chiefly  because  it  has  largely  banished  diph- 
thongs, properly  speaking. 

Elements  of  phonetics. — In  the  rudimentary  principles 
offered  here,  I do  not  pretend  to  do  more  than  set  down 
the  facts  necessary  to  a proper  comprehension  of  this  work. 
Without  these  explanations,  my  book  might,  in  places, 
seem  inconsistent  and  confusing.  For  exact  classified 
treatment  of  the  subject  read  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology. 

Vowels. — Vowels  are  unstable;  a in  one  language  may 
be  au  = 0,  or  ai  = e in  another  language,  or  in  a derivative 
in  the  same  language;  u and  o are  constantly  changing 
places;  a may  become  e or  i as:  agni,  fire,  Sanskrit;  ignis, 
Latin;  English,  ingle-side.  Vowels  and  roots  are  fre- 
quently strengthened.  For  instance  ma  in  Sanskrit  is 
strengthened  to  man;  lip,  Greek,  to  leave,  becomes  lelpo 
in  the  present  tense;  venir,  Spanish,  come,  becomes  vengo, 
I come,  viene,  he  comes.  The  real  stem  may  always  be 
traced  somewhere,  as  in  elipon,  the  aorist  of  lefpo.  Old 

1 “Sound  shifting”  may  swing  around  a circle  and  finally  reach  the  starting- 
point. 


94 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Aryan  is  known  to  have  had  the  vowels  a,  e,  o,  and  i,  u, 
which  two  latter  were  much  employed  in  the  formation 
of  diphthongs.  Sanskrit  lost  a large  part  of  its  vowel 
heritage  and  became  a monotonous  a-language.1 

The  equivalence  of  vowels  and  diphthongs  existing 
between  Mexican  and  Greek  and  Sanskrit  is  exhibited  in 
the  following  table: 


Mexican . 

a 

e 

i 

O 

u 

Sanskrit. 

a 

a 

i,  a 

u,  V 

vu 

Greek . . . 

a,  €,  7],  0 

c,  a,  7] 

L 

V 

F 

Mexican . 

iu,  yu , yo 

ui 

ua 

iui  ( u ) 

ai 

eo,  eu 

Sanskrit. 

u , yu 

vi,  va 

va,(r)a,(x)a 

u,  (vi),  iv 

e 

au,  a(x) 

Greek . . . 

v,  *jv,  fn 

fOl,  fl , l/t,  U,  (m) 

pa,  a 

vt,  *jvi,  V 

at 

€V 

X indicates  a missing  labial. 

The  pseudo-labial  u performs  a vicarious  service:  (1)  it 
may  represent  a labial ; as  Mexican,  auh,  also;  Sanskrit, 
api;  (2)  a lost  cj;  as  Mexican,  uapaua,  get  rigid ; Greek, 
7 ra^-u?;  (3)  a lost  r,  as  Mexican,  nauatl,  clear;  Indo- 
Iranian,  nalj  Mexican,  naua,  dance;  Sanskrit,  nrt. 

The  vowel  i (y)  may  represent  a lost  r as  in  quiyauitl , 
ghr  + ab;  Sanskrit,  rishi;  Pali,  isi.  The  change  of  b,  p,  to 
u is  of  very  wide  geographical  reach,  as:  Mexican  kauh, 
ape;  Sanskrit,  kapi;  Pali,  vuddho;  Sanskrit,  buddh&. 
The  same  is  true  of  u=r,  l as:  Mexican,  xau- a;  Latin, 
coZ-or;  Old  French,  6chauder;  Latin,  excaldere,  scald.  The 
change  of  a palatal  to  u appears  to  be  Indo-Iranian,  as: 
Mexican,  ua-pa?/a,  7 rd^u?;  Panjabi,  neul;  Sanskrit,  na/rula. 

The  vocalic  system  of  Mexican  lies  betiveen  Greek  and 
Sanskrit. 

Dentals. — Old  Aryan  had  the  dentals  t,  th,  cl,  dh. 
Philologists  say  they  were  more  truly  dental  than  in 

1 For  a brief  discussion  of  the  primitive  Aryan  vowel  system,  cf.  Professor 
A.  S.  Wilkins,  Encyclopaedia  Britannica , “Greek  Language,”  Vol.  XI,  p.  127; 
Professor  E.  Sievers,  Vol.  XVIII,  p.788;  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology,  pp.  7,  8. 
Also,  Pezzi,  Aryan  Phonology,  p.  51. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


95 


English,  the  tip  of  the  tongue  being  pressed  against  the 
teeth  in  utterance. 

Gutturals  ( eastern  and  western ),  the  kg-q  and 
kg-s  sound  shifts. — There  were  two  sets  of  back  con- 
sonants, palatals  and  gutturals,  and  these  were  aspirate 
or  non-aspirate:  thus  g,  gh , k,  kh.  This  subject  is  rather 
abstruse,  but  each  of  these  series  was  again  classified  as 
pure  palatals  and  labio-velars,  those  which  had  an  accom- 
panying parasitic  v as  gvarm,  warm;  kvos,  what.  The 
palatals  divide  into  an  s-series  and  a k-series,  the  s being 
eastern  and  k,  g or  h,  hw,  the  equivalents,  western.  K be- 
comes q (s)  in  Sanskrit,  as  in  §van  (svan),  dog;  and  remains 
k or  h in  the  western  tongues  and  partially  in  Mexican ; as, 
kvcov,  dog,  Greek;  canis,  Latin;  hund,  German;  itzcuin , 
Mexican  = *skuin.  Clallam  is  skaha ; Snake,  sharay. 

It  is  necessary  to  understand  these  sounds  else  you 
cannot  see  the  connection  between  Greek,  kvcov,  German, 
hund , and  English,  hound;  Mexican,  calli,  house;  Old 
Persian,  kal’a;  Sanskrit,  gala(?);  Romany,  kher,  khel.1 

The  labio-velars,  through  the  influence  of  this  associ- 
ated v or  iv,  became  in  western  tongues:  p,  h,  f,  tv,  v,  as: 
*gvarm,  Aryan,  warm;  gharma,  Sanskrit;  forrnus,  Old 
Latin,  warm;  Germanic,  cognate,  burn;  Greek,  thermbs. 

Catilr,  four,  Sanskrit;  tettares,  Greek;  chetuire,  Rus- 
sian; quatuor,  Latin;  pedwar,  Welsh ; tier,  German;  four, 
English.  Here  we  have  for  Aryan  k,  c in  Sanskrit,  ch  in 
Russian,  t in  Greek,  qu  in  Latin,  p in  Welsh,  and  / in 
German. 

Aryan  *kvo-s,  who,  what;  Sanskrit,  kas;  Ionic,  kos; 
Attic,  pos;  Latin,  quod;  English,  who,  what;  Mexican, 
cuix.  Generally,  then,  the  eastern  languages  have  palatals, 

l When  I speak  of  distinguishing  these  sounds  I do  not  mean  that  you  must 
understand  the  cause  of  such  changes.  No  one  can  say  truthfully  that  he  can 
explain  the  subtle  causes  of  phonetic  change. 


96 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


an  s-series,  and  a 1c- series.  The  eastern,  s-series  (§)  ap- 
pears in  the  west  as  1c,  as  Sanskrit,  gatam,  hundred ; Lith- 
uanian, szimtas;  Latin,  centum  (kentum) ; Welsh,  cant; 
English,  hundred.  The  labio-velars  of  the  east  change  in 
the  west  to  q,  qv,  hw,  or  a labial  as  four  and  what.  This 
change  should  not  occur  in  Mexican.  Uentli  an  offering 
is  from  Sanskrit,  hil  *ghu;  Latin,  fu- t-is;  uitztli,  thorn, 
from  German  gerste .'  But  Pimentel  employs  a parasitic 
v as  in  Jcvallotl,  beauty,  icaXov,  for  which  I find  no  phonetic 
warrant  (see  p.  99). 

But  some  philologists  contend  that  the  entire  subject 
of  human  speech-sounds  is  too  little  understood  to  be  dealt 
with  conclusively,  because  up  to  the  present  time,  investiga- 
tion has  been  confined  largely  to  Aryan  sounds.  Since  the 
organs  of  speech  appear  to  be  the  same  among  all  tribes 
and  colors  of  men  we  may  naturally  expect  the  same  pho- 
netic changes  to  occur.  In  fact,  general  phonetics  are  the 
same,  and  to  make  exceptions  of  the  American  languages,  as 
some  do,  is  unsound  philology.  When  universal  philology 
has  been  written  we  shall  hear  no  more  of  this  bugbear. 

The  “continental”  pronunciation  which  is  employed  in 
this  book,  is  also  known  as  the  Italian.  In  Mexican,  h is 
simply  a device  to  indicate  the  nature  of  vowel  sounds; 
thus  Anahuac  is  pronounced  A-n&-wac,  not  anawhack. 
For  this  reason  h is  seldom  used  except  with  u,  which  it 
may  precede  or  follow. 

Vocalic  consonants  were  common,  apparently  in  Aryan. 
Now,  practically  only  r and  l remain  and  they  are  confined 
to  Sanskrit.  These  sounds  have  occurred  so  often  in  the 
body  of  this  book  that  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  explain 
their  character  as  they  occurred,  hence  no  repetition  is 

1 Cf.  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology , Tables  C,  D. 

2 Modern  Khassi  admirably  illustrates  these  sounds:  bh=b-ha;  kh=k-lia; 
dh=d-ha ; gh=g-hi ; pk=p-huh ; rh=r-hem  ; th=t-haw ; Roberts,  Khassi  Grammar. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


97 


necessary  here,  beyond  the  general  statement  that  a vowel 
sound,  more  or  less  distinct,  accompanies  them,  as:  r (ar), 
rise,  go,  fit,  rn6ti,  &rta,  rt&. 

There  was  also  a vocalic  n in  Aryan  as,  tntd,  stretched. 
Other  languages  insert  a vowel  with  or  without  the  n,  as 
Greek,  tatds;  Latin,  tendere ; Mexican,  tentli. 

The  place  of  Mexican. — With  regard  to  the  split  k-s- 
sounds,  Mexican  seems  sometimes  to  stand  with  the  east 
and  again  with  the  west  in  Qvan,  Sanskrit;  canis,  Latin; 
itzcuintli,  Mexican  ( itzc  or  izc  — sk).1  Here  it  is  old 
Aryan  rather  than  eastern  or  western,  but  kas,  Sanskrit, 
(and  cuix,  what,  Mexican  ?)  are  both  eastern,  while  what  and 
quod  are  western.  An  anomalous  change  of  Sanskrit  rt 
to  Iranian  sh  appears  to  occur  also  in  Mexican;  as  Sanskrit, 
drtha,  property,  goods;  Pukhto,  as/iya;  Mexican,  ash- ca, 
as  n’axca,  mine,  that  is,  my  property ; Zend,  asha.  Some- 
times t is  dropped  as:  Mexican,  naua,  to  dance;  Sanskrit, 
nrt ; Hind.,  nautch. 

Strengthened  roots  have  been  dealt  with  already. 
Sometimes  an  m or  n infix  occurs  as  lab,  lambdno,  Greek; 
conjugate,  conjunction ; but  this  device  is  seldom  found  in 
Mexican. 

Initial  m and  final  n are  sounded  very  faintly  in  Mexican. 
Mexica,  Mexicans,  is  pronounced  very  nearly  exica;  totolin 
or  totoli,  hen.  Ch  is  the  Spanish  eh  as  in  church,  except 
in  such  a position  as  in  the  word  opochtli,  when  it  is  prac- 
tically sh.  X has  the  sound  of  sh  or  ch.2 

Labials.— It  is  a remarkable  fact  that  of  the  entire 
labial  series  of  consonants,  p,  b,  v,w  (?<),  the  Mexican  has 
lost  all  but  p,  u.  Olmos,  however,  asserts  that  at  the  time 

1 For  phonetics  see  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology. 

2 The  history  and  exact  character  of  this  sound  is  not  clear.  Olmos  says, 
Grammar,  p.  198,  that  it  should  be  sounded  like  x in  Latin  dixi.  The  Spaniards 
pronounce  it  like  j,  German  ch,  but  Pimentel  says  it  resembles  initial  ch  but  is  not 
the  same. 


98 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


of  the  conquest,  the  Mexican  women  often  employed  a 
tv-sound  where  the  men  uttered  the  u(oo)-sound.  It  is 
an  unaccountable  fact  that  b was  very  rare  in  Old  Aryan. 

G is  missing  from  the  Mexican,  which  would  indicate  a 
forward  movement  of  sounds.1  This  general  decay  of  g is 
wholly  different  from  such  a case  as  *gvarm,  English, 
warm.  Here  the  loss  of  g may  be  attributed  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  accompanying  semi- vowel,  v.  There  must  have 
existed  a slight  tendency  toward  uttering  a g.  Olmos  says 
at  times  the  natives  appear  to  pronounce  a g but  that  in 
his  opinion  the  real  sound  should  always  be  c (k).2 

Line  of  descent  and  assimilation. — It  will  be  seen  from 
this  short  discussion  of  phonetics,  that  consonants  very  sel- 
dom cross  a series.  The  change,  if  any,  is  to  another  letter 
in  the  same  series ; in  other  words,  once  a labial,  always  a 
labial.  Thus  the  Sanskrit,  pana,  drinking,  becomes  Mexican 
tla-uana;  duhitr  becomes  tiuhtli,  both  dentals.  Water 
and  atl  stand  side  by  side.  Mexican  having  dropped  the 
v which  Greek,  did  universally.  How  four  can  be  catiir 
in  Sanskrit  and  quatuor  in  Latin  and  fier  in  German,  has 
been  explained  under  k-sounds.  But  the  Greek  tdttares, 
four,  may  be  termed  a phonetic  “sport”  though  k and  t 
are  sometimes  interchangeable,  regularly  so,  in  Samoan 
and  Awabakal.3 

MandB. — Some  philologists  contend  that  m is  a regular 
substitute  for  b,  in  natural  course  of  phonetic  change. 
This  view  finds  corroboration  in  Tupi- Guarani,  where  mb 
and  mp  are  common  initial  consonants  as  in  rnboe,  to  teach. 

Arabic. — The  t in  such  words  as  naka  (t),  she-camel, 
is  in  a “constructive  position.” 

1 For  an  interesting  discussion  of  the  forward  movement  of  sounds,  see 
Sweet,  History  of  Language,  p.  32. 

2 Olmos,  Grammar  Nahuatl,  p.  197. 

3 See  Sweet,  History  of  Language,  p.  29;  also  I.  L.  Threlkeld,  Grammar  of 
Awabakal,  ed.  John  Fraser. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


99 


Assimilated  consonants. — Frequently  a letter  is  assi- 
milated with  a following  letter  ( recessive  assimilation). 
This  is  especially  true  in  Latin  as  scala,  *scad-la;  terra, 
*tersa.  The  same  occurs  in  Mexican  as  can  ge,  caz  ge; 
ma  tiquin-xox,  ma  tiquix-xox,  do  not  fascinate  them.  There 
is  also  progressive  assimilation,  as  buddli&  for  budh-tA 

Accent. — The  accent  in  Mexican  usually  falls  on  the 
penult.  In  vocatives  on  the  ultimate,  as  totatzin6,  oh  our 
father ! But  the  shortening  of  words  as  used  with  posses- 
sive pronouns  causes  a stress  which  is  not  properly  accent, 
as:  calli,  a house,  nocalh,  my  house. 

The  saltillo,  little  leap,  is  a feature  of  Mexican  pro- 
nunciation which  appears  to  be  aspiration.  It  is  fully 
described  by  Chimalpopoca.  Some  authors  say  it  is  a 
pedantic  nicety  which  may  be  ignored  altogether. 

Dialects. — In  some  instances  Mexican  seems  to  follow 
Sanskrit  very  closely  as  kapi,  ape;  Mexican,  quauhj 
cihuatl , woman;  Sanskrit,  giva.  Again  it  seems  to  be 
nearer  the  Avestan.  Thus  mauigo , wise,  great,  learned, 
may  be  derived  from  mag,  Sanskrit  manh,  by  dropping  g 
and  filling  its  place  with  u,  a common  Indo-Iranian  change. 
But  this  requires  Aryan  terminal  s which  is  not  Mexican. 
Or  it  may  be  derived  from  the  same  root  following  Avestan 
analogy  where  g becomes  s;  or  Sanskrit  g to  j,  Mexican, 
ch  or  xj  thus  mauigo  = magian,  by  the  change  to  s and 
the  introduction  of  adventitious  vowels.1  A parallel  case 
as  to  vowels  is  krndti;  Avestan,  kerenaoiti.  After  the 
Avestan,  Mexican  yauiz- teca,  to  set  up  a shrine,  iyaua,  is 
from  yaj,  to  worship;  Greek,  aytd£&>,  to  consecrate. 
The  Hindustani  word  for  magi  is  majus ; for  magic,  'azi- 
raaLkhwani.  The  Mexican  compound  verb  azi-ca-mati,2 

1 Whitney,  Sanskrit  Grammar,  sec.  219;  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology,  p.  10. 

2 Azi  is  phonetically  serpent,  ahi,  “ serpent  wisdom  cf.  Zend,  Azhi  dahaka. 


100 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


means  to  be  wise,  to  know  perfectly.  The  identification 
of  magian  with  mauigo  thus  seems  to  be  indisputable. 

These  Indo-Iranian  dialects  seem  to  have  run  amuck 
in  verbal  forms.  The  Sanskrit  for  mongoose  is  nakula , 
the  Panjabi  is  neul.  The  Sanskrit,  pdcati,  means  to  cook ; 
Avestan,  pacaiti ; New  Persian,  pazad;  Afghan,  paxa- 
vaul;  Kurd,  patin;1  Mexican,  pahua. 

The  loss  of  a final  palatal  is  pan-Aryan,  as:  Pali, 
manaiii;  Sanskrit,  manak;  Greek,  dvy -a-Tr)p-,  Sanskrit, 
duliitr;  Mexican,  tiuhtli;  English,  dauter,  daughter. 

Since  the  Nahua  consisted  of  several  tribes  it  is  natural 
to  suppose  from  these  comparisons  that  they  brought  with 
them  to  the  New  World  some  of  their  peculiarities  in  dialect.2 

Mexican  phonetics  are  Spanish  of  the  sixteenth  century. 
The  system  is  arbitrary,  contradictory,  and  full  of  absurdi- 
ties. The  verb  qua,  eat,  is  also  cua  (Sanskrit,  gr,  gras? 
de-vorare  f) ; uei,  large,  or  huei;  Nauatl  or  Nahuatl. 
The  same  word  may  be  spelled  with  ch,  x,  z,  or  s at  the 
caprice  of  each  writer.  The  vowels  o and  u are  often 
equivalents,  as  teotl  or  teutl,  god. 

For  initial  s,  Mexican  employs  9;  as  a rule  for  medial  s, 
2 is  preferred,  but  a MS  of  1007  everywhere  employs  s.3 
But  Chimalpopoca  (1879)  employs  initial  z for  s and 
discards  g entirely.  In  fact,  the  utmost  confusion  exists 
as  to  s and  h and  no  writer  seems  to  be  uniform  with  him- 
self. I may  as  well  confess  that  I,  too,  have  not  been  uni- 
form, but  not  carelessly.  I have  often  dropped  h,  which 
is  a clumsy  makeshift,  and  in  such  words  as  uetzca  it  is 
misleading  to  English  readers  who  would  pronounce  the 
word  whetzca. 

1 Gray,  Indo-Iranian  Phonology. 

2 The  Congress  of  Orientalists  announces  (1908)  the  discovery  of  an  extinct 
Aryan  language  in  Chinese  Turkestan  which  is  said  to  be  western. 

3 Los  Reyes,  N ahuatl  text,  miracle  play  of  Tlatelulco,  Chicago  Public  Library. 


CHAPTER  XII 


Mexican  Notation. — The  Five-Base — Chica  ce,6 — Ten — The  Fif- 
teen-Base — System  Aryan  — “ Hand  Counting” — Antiquity. 

The  Mexican  numeral  system  and  the  Aztec  calendar1 
are  of  such  importance  that  they  deserve  a thorough  dis- 
cussion but  the  subject  can  only  be  mentioned  here.  The 
Mexican  cycle  consisted  of  52  years,  and  at  the  end  of 
which  occurred  the  ceremonial  of  “binding  up  the  years,” 
mo’lpilli  in  xiuitl.  All  fires  were  extinguished,  the  people 
rent  their  garments  with  lamentations  and  the  sacred  fire 
was  rekindled  on  the  breast  of  a living  victim  upon  a 
mountain  top.  When  the  fire  was  rekindled2  swift  runners 
distributed  it  to  the  people  of  Anahuac  and  rejoicing  suc- 
ceeded the  period  of  gloom.  When  the  Spaniards  landed 
in  the  country,  they  were  surprised  to  find  that  the  Aztec 
calendar  was  practically  correct  in  actual  date,  while  their 
own  was  several  days  behind  time.  The  year  contained 
18  months  of  20  days  each,  with  a supplementary  period 
of  5 days.  Both  days  and  months  had  specific  names. 

The  method  of  counting  was  vigesimal,  that  is  by  20s.a 
The  names  of  the  numerals  up  to  fifteen  are,  in  my  opinion, 
pregnant  with  facts  regarding  the  genesis  of  numeration. 
Five,  ten,  and  fifteen  have  special  names  unlike  those  of 
the  true  Aryan  system.  They  will  be  referred  to  later. 

Tupi  has  a word  which  Ruiz  de  Montoya  in  his  diction- 
ary defines  as  “10  or  11.”  Qata,  one  hundred,  in  Sanskrit 

1 For  the  Aztec  calendar  see  Prescott,  Conquest  of  Mexico;  Chimalpahin’s 
Annals , Simeon’s  edition ; for  the  names  of  the  months,  see  Metztli ; for  the  days , 
see  Ilhuitl  in  Simeon’s  Nauatl-French  Dictionary. 

2 On  Mt.  UicA-ach-tecatl ; “keeper  of  the  light?”  Uich=i)ii<!,  eos- t-ra,  Easter. 

3 The  vigesimal  system  is  still  in  use  in  Kafiristan  in  the  Hindu  Kush  region. 

101 


102 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


also  meant  “a  great  many.”  From  this  it  may  be  seen 
that  the-  primitive  counting  was  rather  indefinite  just  as 
we  yet  say,  “eight  or  ten”  men. 

The  first  great  unit  in  Mexican  notation  is  20 ; the  next 
400,  its  square ; the  next  8,000,  its  cube.  Twenty  is  called 
cempoalli,  one  score;  400,  centzontli,  meaning  many, 
literally,  “a  head  of  hair;”  8,000  is  called  xiquipilli,  a 
purse  or  bagful. 

In  counting,  they  add  units  to  10  as  we  do,  but  fifteen 
is  a new  base.  Ten  is  matlactli;  eleven,  matlactli  ce,  “ten 
one”;  sixteen  is  caxtolli  ce,  fifteen  one;  nineteen,  caxtolli 
on  naui,  “fifteen  on  four.”  Once  is  ceppa;  another  time, 
occeppn.  The  system  is  capable  of  expressing  complicated 
ideas  which  in  English  can  only  be  explained  at  length. 
It  is  thoroughly  worked  out,  is  comprehensive,  and  an 
index  of  a high  degree  of  civilization,  such  as  the  Aztecs 
possessed.  The  vigesimal  system  is  also  used  by  the  Mayas 
of  Yucatan  and  their  calendar  was  the  same  as  the  Aztec. 

THE  NUMERALS  (CARDINAL) 

1.  Ce 

2.  Ome 

3.  Ei,  yei  or  e 

4.  Naui  (nahui) 

5.  Macuilli  (a  hand) 

6.  Chica  ce 

7.  Chicome 

8.  Chicuei 

9.  Chiucnaui  or  chicanaui 

10.  Matlactli  (“both  hands”) 

11.  Matlactli  oce  (on  ce) 

15.  Caxtolli 

16.  Caxtolli  oce  (on  ce) 

18.  Coxtolli  omey  (on  ei) 

20.  Cempoalli  (“  1 score  ”) 

21.  Cempoalli  on  ce,  or  oce 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


103 


22.  Cempoalli  omome  (on  ome),  etc. 

30.  Cempoalli  on  matlactli 

34.  Cempoalli  on  matlactli  on  naui 

35.  Cempoalli  on  caxtolli  (20  + 15) 

40.  Ompoalli  (ome  poalli) 

100.  Macuilpoalli  (“5  score”) 

250.  Matlacpoalli  ipan  ompalli  on  matlactli 1 
400.  Centzontli  (a  great  bunch;  a head  of  hair) 

500.  Centzontli  ipan  macuilpoalli  (400  with  “5  score”) 

1000.  Ontzontli  ipan  macuilpoalli  (2  tzontli  with  “ ten  score  ”) 
7000.  Caxtoltzontli  ihuan  ontzontli  ihuan  matlacpoalli 
8000.  Cenxiquipilli  (one  “purse”  bag.  Cen=ce) 

Macuilli,  five  means  simply  a “hand”  or  “hand-grasp.” 

Chica,  in  chica  ce,  six,  etc.,  is  Sanskrit  adhika,  plus. 

Matlactli , ten,  is  the  torso  or  both  hands  (half  the  body). 

Naui,  four,  may  mean  a man,  “hands  and  feet,”  but 
any  positive  opinion  here  involves  the  differentiation  of 
Mexican  chica  naui,  nine,  and  Sanskrit  nciva,  nine,  which 
may  or  may  not  be  related.  (See  “hand  counting.”) 

Ten. — The  fact  that  Mexican  differs  from  other  Aryan 
languages  in  its  word  for  ten  may  throw  some  light  on  our 
deka,  English  ten.  In  Mexican,  mo-teca  simply  means 
“they  assemble,”  hence  deka  may  originally  have  meant 
merely  a “gathering,”  like  our  expression  “ten  or  twelve” 
[persons]. 

Caxtolli,  fifteen,  I should  derive  from  Sanskrit,  leas,  to 
move,  or  gag,  renewing,  plus  tula,  balance,  weight;  Greek, 
TakavTov. 

Xiquipilli  means  a purse  or  haversack.  This  might 
indicate  perhaps  that  the  people  who  originated  the  word 
were  once  accustomed  to  having  large  sums  of  money  though 


l There  is  some  latitude  in  the  use  of  ipan  and  on.  In  general,  ipan  is  used 
above  one  hundred;  also  in  the  use  of  ihuan.  Chimalpahin  says  macuilpoal 
xiuitl  ipan  ce  xiuitl,  101  years,  also  mactlactli  ihuan  ome  xiuitl,  12  years. 


104 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


the  Mexicans  used  it  in  reckoning  bags  of  cacao  beans. 
Compare  a lac  of  rupees  as  used  in  modern  India. 

Plurals. — The  numerals  have  plural  forms  as:  ome, 
omentin;  ei,  eintin,  etc. 

ORDINAL  NUMBERS 

Chapter  I,  ic  ce  quaitl. 

Chapter,  XVI,  ic  caxtolonce  quaitl. 

Chapter  XXI,  ic  cempoalli  ikuan  ce  quaitl. 

One  time,  ceppa. 

Two  times,  oppa. 

Three  times,  expa. 

Four  times,  nauhpa.1 
Five  times,  macuilpa. 

Six  times,  chicaceppa. 

Seven  times,  chicoppa. 

Eight  times,  chicuexpa. 

Nine  times,  chicunauhpa.1 
Ten  times,  matlacpa. 

Ordinals  may  be  read  with  can,  as  excan , “ by  threes,”  three  in 
a bunch;  also  with  oc,  occe,  another;  ocome,  two  others. 

The  first  time,  ic  ceppa. 

The  second  time,  ic  ompa,  etc. 

Ce. — Ce  and  centzontli  deserve  a passing  notice.  Ce, 
Sanskrit  sa,  Latin  as,  denotes  the  idea  of  unity.  The 
original  meaning,  however,  appears  to  have  been  either 
one  thing  or  a number  of  things  taken  as  a unit.  The 
latter  sense  may  serve  to  explain  the  difference  between 
the  100-unit  of  the  other  Aryans  and  the  400-unit  of  the 
Mexican  system.  The  Latin  cent-xun  is  one  hundred,  but 
the  Mexican  tzont- li  is  four  hundred.  From  this  it  appears 
that  ce  originally  referred  to  the  aggregate  as  a unit  and 
not  to  the  number  of  individual  units  forming  it,  consid- 
ered as  to  their  number.  But  it  is  not  certain  that  tzontli 
can  be  referred  to  cent- um  (see  p.  48). 

i The  h in  words  spelled  like  nauhpa  indicates  merely  a hiatus  as  “ na-oo-pa,” 
„not  now-pa.” 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


105 


Omc,  two,  may,  I think,  fairly  be  considered  as  the 
sacred  syllable  om.  In  Panjabi,  ikokar,  ik-om-kar,  means 
naming  the  trinity,  i.  e.,  doing  “the  one  two  three”  bat 
three  is  omitted. 

Nine  is  chiuchnaui  or  chicci  naui,  chica  “plus,”  San- 
skrit, adhika,  indicating  increments  added  between  5 and  10. 

It  will  be  observed  that  I have  identified  as  Aryan,  1,  2, 
6 to  9,  15,  20,  with  100  doubtful.  I have  not  been  able 
to  ascertain  the  relationship  existing  between  Mexican  4, 
naui / and  Sanskrit,  9,  ndva. 

POSSIBILITIES  OF  MEXICAN  NUMERATION 

The  word  matlactli , ten,  affords  a good  example  of  the 
capacity  of  the  Mexican  for  varied  expression.  Tlamantli 
or  Centlamantli  is  in  general,  thing,  object.2 

Matlactlamantli,  10  objects. 

Im  matlactlamantli,  centlamantli,  10  objects  in  one,  “a  ten.” 

Im  matlactlamanixtin  (plural  of  above),  all  the  ten  objects,  all 
the  tens. 

Matlacpa,  ten  times. 

Oc  matlacpa,  ten  more  times. 

Matlacpa  matlactli,  10  times  10. 

Matlacpa  ixquich,  10  times  as  much. 

Matlacpa  omome  or  omoppa,  12  times. 

Im  matlactli  ce,  10  in  one. 

Matlaccan,  in  10  places.3 
Ic  matlactlamantli,  10th  object. 

Inic  matlactlamantli,  the  10th  object,  or  a tenth  part. 
Matlatlactli  (reduplication),  by  tens. 

* Four  was  a sacred  syllable  in  magic,  to  which  the  Aztecs  were  greatly 
addicted.  For  the  sacred  syllable  “ om,”  see  Elphinstone,  History  of  India,  Vol. 
I,  Bk.  I,  chap.  ix. 

2 Sanskrit,  mantra,  any  utterance  of  a priest,  during  devotion,  which  he 
enumerated  as  a part  of  his  supposed  inspiration,  or  incantation. 

3 Simeon  renders  matlaccan,  “dix  parties,”  ten  parts,  also  “dix  endroits,” 
ten  places.  Can  is  a locative  of  place,  ordinarily,  as  qualcan,  a good  place. 


106 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Hand  counting. — An  excellent  account  of  the  origin  of 
numeration  and  “hand  counting”  is  given  by  E.  B.  Tylor 
in  Primitive  Culture.  I shall  give  a few  of  his  salient 
facts  here  condensed  and  in  my  own  phrasing.  The  Tonga 
Islanders  have  native  numerals  up  to  100,000  (Vol  I, 
p.  241).  Finger  methods  vary.  In  Tamanac,  of  South 
America  (quoting  Father  Gilig),  5 = “ whole  hand;”  6 = 
“one  on  the  other  hand;”  10=“both  hands;”  ll  = stretch 
out  both  hands  and  say:  “one  on  the  foot;”  16  = “one  on 
the  other  foot;”  20  = “tevin  itoto,”  “one  indian;”  21  = 
“one  to  the  hands  of  the  other  indian;”  40  = “two  indians.” 

Per  contra  in  Juri  “a  man”  is  only  5. 

“Zulu  is  perhaps  surpassed  by  no  language  in  finger 
counting.”  They  begin  in  general  with  the  little  finger 
of  the  left  hand,  then  the  thumb  makes  a “finish  hand;” 
the  right  thumb  becomes  six;  the  right  index  finger  is 
seven  and  the  word  used  is  Jcomba,  to  point. 

Tylor  (quoting  Dr.  Wilson)  continues:  “The  dual 
number  preserves  to  us  that  stage  of  thought  when  all 
beyond  two  was  an  indefinite  number.” 

The  natives  of  the  Island  of  Futuna,  New  Hebrides, 
have  numerals  to  4 inclusive;  5 is  “my  hand;”  6,  “my 
hand  and  one;”  10,  “both  hands;”  then  on  toes  up  to  20; 
above  20,  “very  many.”  This  is  the  simplest  system.1 

Does  enumeration  throw  any  light  upon  the  relative 
antiquity  of  Indian  tribes? 

One  of  the  first  things  which  primitive  man  learned 
must  have  been  to  count  in  some  fashion,  however  crude. 
The  Tupi  Indians  of  South  America  have  distinct  names 
for  the  numerals,  only  from  one  to  four  inclusive.  When 
we  compare  this  meager  result  with  the  highly  developed 
system  of  the  Nauatlaca  the  contrast  is  very  striking.  The 

1 W.  G.  Fitz-Gerald,  Harper’s  Magazine,  October,  1907. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


107 


Mosquito  Indians  have  an  elaborated  system  wholly  dif- 
ferent from  the  Aztec.  The  Algonquin  system  appar- 
ently has  no  relation  to  any  of  these,  unless  it  be  that  the 
Delaware,  newo,  newa,  four , be  the  Mexican  naui,  four. 
The  system  appears  to  be  concise  and  sufficient.  The 
Tupis  appear  to  have  been  wholly  ignorant  of  hand  count- 
ing, which  the  other  peoples  mentioned  all  have.  Why 
this  great  difference  in  the  numeral  systems  of  inhabitants 
of  the  same  continent?  What  is  the  signification?  It 
seems  to  argue  that  these  tribes  have  been  isolated  for 
very  long  periods  and  separated  before  the  very  beginnings 
of  anything  like  culture. 

Some,  however,  believe  that  the  origin  of  counting  is 
to  be  found  in  purely  mental  concepts  which  involve  ideas 
of  Cosmogony.  For  example,  if  the  ego  be  considered  as 
a center  there  at  once  arises  the  idea  of  the  four  quarters 
of  the  earth  with  reference  to  this  center,  also  the  idea  of 
an  upper  world  (zenith)  and  an  under  world  (nadir).1 

■See  W.  J.  McGee,  “Primitive  Numbers,”  Smithsonian  Report , 1897-98,  Part 
I,  p.  834.  This  is,  of  course,  pure  philosophizing,  hence  neither  susceptible  of 
proof  nor  to  be  contradicted. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


History  and  Geography  of  the  Mexican  Language — Tribes — 
Native  Records  and  Historians — Ruins — Population. 

| Introductory  Note. — Chaps,  xiii,  xiv,  and  xv  were  written 
before  I had  determined  positively  that  the  Nauatlaca1  are  Indo- 
Iranians.  I tried  to  give  a fair  r<5sum6  of  their  fragmentary, 
mingled  history  and  tradition  and  naturally  I ventured  on  some 
speculation  of  my  own.  I have  concluded  to  let  this  part  stand 
as  originally  written  because  it  is  a fair  statement  in  brief  com- 
pass of  the  difficulties  of  the  case  and  it  presents  a few  opinions 
of  various  writers  with  my  own  tentative  suggestions.  With  one 
year’s  further  successful  investigation,  I have  proceeded  to  give, 
in  chap,  xvi,  what  I finally  believe  to  be  a clear  and  conclusive 
exposition  of  the  Aztlan  legend  and  have  identified  some  of  the 
places  named  in  it.] 

Tribes. — There  was  a mingling  of  tribes  on  the  plateau 
of  central  Mexico,  and  much  speculation  has  been  indulged 
as  to  their  origin  and  relationship.  There  were  Toltecs, 
Chicliimecs,  Chalcas,  Tlacochcalcas,  Mexicans,  Acolhuas, 
and  others.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  best-known 
name  of  all,  Azteca  or  Mexica,  was  unimportant  in  the 
early  days.  But  finally  the  Mexica  obtained  the  mastery 
over  the  other  tribes  and  subdued  numerous  “kings.” 
But  these  kings,  like  those  overthrown  by  Joshua,  were 
really  petty  rulers,  “lords  rich  in  a dozen  paltry  villages.” 
From  the  time  of  Axayacatl  to  the  conquest,  the  rulers  of 
Mexico  were  really  worthy  the  name  king,  though  they 
styled  themselves  simply  “tlatoani,”  “he  who  commands,” 
literally,  who  speaks.  Their  courts  were  splendid  and  re- 
fined, with  incomprehensible  aspects  of  barbarism.  The 

1 Nauatlaca  is  a compound  of  Nauatl , a language,  and  tlacatl,  man,  the  whole 
meaning  the  people  who  speak  Nauatl. 

108 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


109 


great  Axayacatl  himself  once  deigned  to  take  part  in  a dance, 
clad  in  a gorgeous  flowing  robe  of  feather  work  which  was 
open  at  the  sides  sufficiently  to  give  glimpses  of  his  fine 
figure  and  coppery  skin.  Some  incidents  of  this  great 
festal  occasion,  half  ball,  half  religious  ceremonial,  strik- 
ingly illustrate  the  absolute  power  of  this  monarch  who  was 
satisfied  to  style  himself  “ he  who  commands.”  The  chiefs 
of  the  Tlacochcalca  had  come,  bringing  with  them  the 
great  musician  who  was  expected  to  conduct  the  cere- 
monies. But  somehow  he  bungled  things,  when  a young 
musician  who  was  present  volunteered  and  saved  the  day. 
He  won  such  applause  that  the  great  Axayacatl  himself 
deigned  to  emerge  from  the  seclusion  of  his  women,  in  the 
royal  gallery,  and  indulge  in  a _p«s  seul  to  the  edification 
of  his  people.  Because  of  their  failure,  the  leading  men 
of  the  Tlacochcalca  expected  nothing  less  than  the  fall  of 
a few  heads  to  placate  displeased  royalty.  But  the  king 
was  in  a merry  mood,  and  heaping  gifts  on  his  new  favorite, 
overlooked  the  failure  of  the  old.  This  incident  suggests 
the  arbitrary  acts  of  oriental  despots  and  especially  those 
of  the  kings  of  Persia.’ 

To  illustrate  the  smallness  of  these  “kingdoms,”  Tez- 
coco  which  was  the  Athens  of  Nauatlaca  culture,  is  only 
about  thirty  miles  from  Mexico.  But  all  these  tribes 
(some  say  seven)  spoke  the  same  language,  Nauatl  or  Mex- 
ican. This  fact  makes  their  tribal  names  seem  still  more 
obscure.  From  what  central  seat  did  these  successive 
migrations  emanate  ? And  what  became  of  the  parent  stock  ? 
Its  extinction  implies  a great  antiquity  and  perhaps  a great 
national  calamity.  But  the  Toltecs  appeared  on  the 
plains  of  Anahuac  only  about  1,200  years  ago  according  to 
(alleged)  authentic  data.  These  Nauatlaca,  Nauatl  men, 

l Annals  of  Chimalpahin,  year  1479. 


110 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


regardless  of  tribal  relation  have  been  called  “Nahua,” 
“Nuhua,”  or  “Noa.”  They  have  once  been  in  close  touch 
with  the  Hindus,  the  Assyrians,  and  the  Accadians. 

Ruins.- — The  great  pyramid,  teocalli,  of  Cholula  incon- 
testably suggests  Babylonia.1  I visited  Cholula  in  the  year 
1891  and  was  filled  with  wonder  at  its  vast  dimensions  which 
clearly  establish  the  existence  of  a dense  population  and 
such  a work  implies  an  organized  community  long  settled  in 
one  place.  Twenty-seven  miles  northeast  of  the  City  of 
Mexico,  at  Teotihuacan,  the  sacred  city  of  the  Toltecs,  are 
the  pyramids  of  the  sun  and  the  moon.  The  pyramid  of 
the  sun  is  over  200  feet  in  height.  These  pyramids  are 
like  the  pyramid  of  Cheops  in  form,  while  Cholula  is  ter- 
raced. A descending  tunnel  leads  to  the  interior.  Here, 
according  to  Sahagun,  tradition  says  that  Tecuiztecatl,  god 
of  the  sun,  and  Nanauatzin,  god  of  the  moon,  once  tarried 
four  days.  According  to  Dr.  Karl  Sapper,  houses  at 
Tonina,  state  of  Chiapas,  are  built  with  walls  sloping  in- 
ward exactly  like  the  great  pylons  of  Egypt  and  the 
pigeon  houses  of  that  country  today.  There  is  an  H -shaped 
court  at  El  Sacramento  and  the  substructure  of  the  great 
inclosure  at  Baalbec  is  H -shaped.  The  ground-plans  of 
a house  at  Ticul  greatly  resemble  the  plans  of  the  temple 
of  Denderah.  The  exterior  of  Denderah,  as  well  as  the 
interior,  is  covered  with  sculptures  as  are  the  exteriors  of 
Peten,  Palenque,  and  Uxmal.  To  my  mind,  these  facts, 
taken  together,  point  significantly  to  some  former  intimate 
connection  between  the  people  of  the  Old  World  and  the 
New,  the  indications  being  that  this  connection,  so  far  as 
the  Nauatlaca  were  concerned,  existed  after  civilization 
had  made  a considerable  advancement. 

i The  pyramid  covers  more  than  44  acres.  It  is  larger  than  the  pyramid  of 
Cheops.  Humboldt  also  remarks  the  resemblance  of  Cholula  to  the  temple  of 
Bel  or  Belus.  Researches,  Vol.  I,  p.  98. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA  111 

I quote  the  following  from  Dr.  Cyrus  Thomas.  Refer- 
ring to  the  slight  progress  made  in  deciphering  these 
records,  he  says: 

We  might  hope  that  further  research  will  prove  that  this  has 
some  relation  to  Maya  history,  were  it  not  that  the  beginning 
was  placed  about  4,000  years  prior  to  the  time  when  the  inscrip- 
tions were  made,  a date  so  remote  as  to  preclude  the  supposition 
that  it  related  to  any  noted  event  in  the  history  of  the  tribes.1 

Chimalpahin  begins  his  Annals,  seventh  relation,  with 
the  dispersion  of  men  at  the  tower  of  Babel.  But  his  sec- 
ond relation  begins  with  the  year  50  A.  d.  Perhaps  after 
all  he  did  not  get  his  authority  for  his  pre- American  history, 
entirely  from  Christian  sources.  (See  notes  p.  126.)  There 
is  a tradition  that  an  Aztec  king,  long  ago,  ordered  all  the 
records  of  his  people  to  be  burned.  Chimalpahin  and 
Ixtlilxochitl  were  both  Indian  historians  who  wrote  in  the 
Nauatl  language.  Both  could  read  the  old  picture  writings 
and  both  refer  to  records  now  lost,  which  they  understood 
perfectly,  in  such  a manner  as  to  leave  no  doubt  of  the 
truth  and  accuracy  of  their  statements  regarding  these 
documents. 

While  the  Maya  language  appears  to  be  distinct,  accord- 
ing to  philologists,  from  the  Mexican,  and  the  Maya  culture 
apparently  older  than  that  of  the  Nauatlaca,  all  indications 
point  to  a common  origin  for  both,  Asia.  It  may  not  be 
going  too  far  to  assert  the  same  of  the  civilization  of  Peru. 
It  is  almost  certain  that  the  deciphering  of  the  Mexican 
and  Mayan  hieroglyphics  would  add  little  to  authentic 
history  but  out  of  much  priestly  rubbish  and  records  of 
world-old  myths  there  could  unquestionably  be  gleaned 
facts  which  would  throw  a flood  of  light  upon  ethnology, 
archaeology  and  mythology. 


i Smithsonian  Document , No.  1532,  “ Central  American  Hieroglyphic  Writing.” 


112 


THE  PKIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


The  geographical  extension  of  the  Nauatlaca  and  the 
Mexican  language  was  very  considerable,  though  not 
equaling  that  of  Algonquin,  Tupi,  or  Quichua.  The  language 
extended  from  the  state  of  Sinaloa  in  northwest  Mexico 
on  the  Pacific,  obliquely  across  the  continent,  to  the 
Mayas  of  Yucatan  on  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  a distance  of 
nearly  1,500  miles.  It  reached  down  the  Pacific  coast 
farther  south  into  Nicaragua,  2,000  miles,  where  it  is  now 
extinct.  It  ruled  supreme  on  the  table-lands  of  Anahuac, 
except  that  an  enclave  of  Otomi  ran  down  from  the  north 
nearly  to  the  City  of  Mexico.  Mexican  was  the  Latin  or 
lingua  franca  of  nearly  all  Mexico.  Tribes  who  did  not 
speak  Mexican  always  understood  more  or  less  of  it.  Its 
only  real  rivals  in  southern  North  America  were  the  Maya 
and  the  Quiche  of  Yucatan.1 

Population.— At  the  time  of  the  conquest,  1520, 
the  language  was  spoken  by  several  millions  of  people, 
probably  five  millions  at  least.  Tenochtitlan  or  Mexico 
was  a great  capital,  a modern  Venice,  possibly  equaling 
in  size  the  present  Venice  of  the  Adriatic.  Cholula  had 
200,000  inhabitants.  Humboldt  thought  the  numbers  of 
the  Indians  to  be  exaggerated  by  the  Spanish  conquista- 
dors. Tylor,  on  the  other  hand,  says  the  temperate  region 
shows  evidences  of  a former  population  perhaps  ten  times 
that  of  the  present.2  Cortez  wrote  to  the  emperor  Charles  V 
that  from  the  top  of  one  tower  at  Cholula  he  had  counted 
more  than  400  other  similar  towers.3  Some  temples  had 
hoo  towers,  others  only  one.  Some  of  the  Spanish  con- 

1 Mexican  is  still  spoken  extensively  in  the  states  of  Vera  Cruz,  Puebla,  Tlax- 
cala,  Mexico,  Guerrero,  Michoacan,  Jalisco,  Sinaloa,  Oaxaca,  Tabasco,  Tehuan- 
tepec, San  Luis,  Colima,  Zacatecas,  Durango.  Francisco  Pimentel,  Lenguas 
Indigenas  de  Mexico , Vol.  I,  p.  158.  [About  1,750,000  people  spoke  Mexican  in 
1862.] 

2 E.  B.  Tylor,  Anahuac. 

3 Clavijero,  History  of  Mexico,  Vol.  II,  p.  23,  note. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA  113 

quistadors  estimated  the  population  of  the  City  of  Mexico 
at  60,000;  others  say  60,000  houses.  My  own  opinion, 
based  partially  on  personal  observation  of  the  stupendous 
ruins  of  the  country,  inclines  to  the  latter  estimate,  since 
the  pyramid  of  Cliolula,  as  just  stated,  covers  44  acres.  Is 
it  not  more  reasonable  then  to  accept  the  estimate  of 
200,000  inhabitants  rather  than  the  absurdly  low  estimate 
of  30,000? 

Tezcoco  was  an  elegant  capital  where  the  Nauatl 
language  was  spoken  in  its  pristine  purity.  There  the 
poet  king  Nezahualcoyotl1  held  his  court  and  wrote  his 
poems.  He  also  constructed  a great  aqueduct  to  furnish 
his  capital  with  pure  water.  This  is  no  exaggerated 
picture;  the  testimony  of  the  conquistadors  may  be 
adduced  in  confirmation.  These  men,  many  of  whom  had 
been  soldiers  of  fortune  and  had  visited  most  of  the  capitals 
of  Europe,  were  struck  with  astonishment  at  what  they 
saw  on  .entering  the  City  of  Mexico.  Some  of  these 
adventurers  declared  that-  in  all  Europe,  Constantinople  not 
excepted,  they  had  never  seen  a finer  appointed  and  busier 
market-place  than  that  of  Tenochtitlan,  the  doomed  capital 
of  the  ill-fated  Empire  of  the  Aztecs. 


i Nezahualcoyotl,  “ fasting  coyote,”  or  “ hungry  wolf,”  (canis  latrans). 


CHAPTER  XIV 


Origin  of  the  Nauatlaca. — Evidence  from  Language — Uitzil- 
opochtli— Possible  Assyrian  Affinities — The  Deluge — Pre- 
Columbian  Discoveries. 

The  various  tribes  which  invaded  Anahuac  from  time 
to  time,  in  successive  migrations,  all  appeared  to  be  of  one 
stock  and  all  spoke  Nauatl,  though  the  word  Nauatlaca 
was  never  used  by  these  people  in  speaking  of  themselves, 
in  so  far  as  I can  discover.  Their  story  is  interesting  even 
if  nothing  is  definitely  fixed  as  to  localities.  But  first  let 
us  continue  with  the  evidence  of  language  a little  longer 
because  that  is  more  certain.1 

U itzilopochtli. — Tegogoinoc,  says  Uitzilton,  “Little 
Humming  Bird,”  was  born  1091  A.  D.  He  was  apotheo- 
sized as  Uitzilopoclitli.  It  is  asserted  that  he  led  the 
Aztec  “migration,”  1064 ?-1087,  twenty-three  years,  from 
the  departure  from  Aztlan  to  the  landing  at  Tlalixco. 
But  apparently  he  was  not  born  till  after  the  “migration” 
had  ended.  Clavijero  says,  in  spite  of  Chimalpahin’s 
assertion  that  the  chiefs  name  was  Uitzilton , that  Boturini 
made  a mistake  in  the  word  because  he  did  not  understand 
Mexican.2  But  Chimalpahin  wrote  several  books  in  Mexi- 
can. Furthermore,  Clavijero  gives  a succinct  account  of 
the  miraculous  conception  and  terrible  events  attending 
the  birth  of  Uitzilopoclitli  at  Coatepec  near  Tula.  Saliagun 

1 According  to  A.  von  Humboldt,  Professor  Vater  and  Dr.  Barton,  of  Phil- 
adelphia, recognized  in  eighty-three  American  languages,  only  one  hundred  and 
thirty-seven  roots  common  to  both  hemispheres  or  one  and  two-thirds  words  to  a 
language.  Such  results  are  practically  nil.  I conclude  that  the  examination 
must  have  been  one  of  those  which  may  be  classed  as  “unscientific.”  A.  von 
Humboldt,  Researches  concerning  the  Institutions  and  Monuments  of  the  Ancient 
Inhabitants  of  America.  Vol.  II. 

'•*  Clavijero,  History  of  Mexico , Vol.  II. 

114 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


115 


spells  the  name  Vicilupuchtli  and  remarks:  “fu6  otro 
Hercules,”  he  was  another  Hercules. 

Let  us  analyze  Uitzilopochtli.  Uitzilin,  is  derived 
from  Sanskrit,  vi,  bird -\-svar,  to  hum,  English,  swarm 
(as  bees).1  What  then  does  opochtli  mean?  This  ques- 
tion at  once  involves  mythology  but  it  pertains  to  etymol- 
ogy as  well.  The  Indian  definition  of  opochtli  is  left 
hand  (side).  Why  was  his  left  foot  adorned  with  hum- 
ming-bird feathers  rather  than  the  right  foot,  or  both 
feet?  The  Greeks  considered  the  left  hand  unlucky, 
hence  always  referred  to  it  as  the  “well  omened,”  evcovv/Aos, 
by  way  of  euphemism,  and  to  break  the  spell  of  bad  luck. 
Even  today  we  all  have  heard  that  it  is  bad  luck  to  see 
the  new  moon,  for  the  first  time,  over  the  left  shoulder.2 
Though  moon  worship  was  general  the  Aryans  assigned 
the  planet  a specific  bearing  on  the  question  of  good  or  bad 
luck.  This  would  appear  then  to  be  a very  widespread 
Old  Aryan  superstition,  if  found  in  Europe,  Asia,  and 
America.  The  Romans  alone  of  Aryan  peoples  did  not 
hold  the  left  hand  to  be  unlucky.  Hence  is  it  not  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  the  Mexicans  decorated  the  left  leg 
of  their  god  for  the  same  reason  which  prevailed  among 
the  Greeks,  that  is,  because  the  left  side  was  unlucky? 
The  word  opochtli  in  itself  does  not  mean  left  at  all,  but 
on  the  contrary  something  good,  the  meaning  left  being 
apparently  an  extension.  The  Sanskrit  root  hhaj,  means 
to  divide,  deal  out,  and  to  give  a part  or  get  a part;  bhaga, 
a derivative  noun,  means  he  who  deals  out,  master,  lord, 
also  an  epithet  of  Savitar,  an  exalted  god  of  the  Hindu 
pantheon.  In  Old  Persian  Bag  a was  God;  in  Russian 

1 Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology,  p.  9. 

2 This  “left  hand”  superstition  is  not  to  be  confused  with  the  obscene  “left- 
hand”  rites  to  the  goddess  Kali  described  by  Jastrow,  Religions  of  India,  p.  491. 
“ Right  and  left  ” had  originally  nothing  to  do  with  the  cardinal  points. 


116 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Bog.  Hence  we  see  that  the  Mexican  o-poc/i-tli  does 
not  stand  alone  in  representing  an  Aryan  deity.  Bhag-a- 
vant  was  fortunate,  blessed,  bhagin,  happy ; bhagini,  a sis- 
ter, “the  happy  one.”  This  last  use  also  occurs  in  the 
Mexican,  ich-poc/t-tli  being  a girl,  tel-^ioc/i-tli,  a boy. 
The  initial  o is  merely  prosthetic.  Does  it  not  follow 
clearly  that  Uitzilopochtli  as  a deity  is  surely  Aryan  and 
cognate  with  the  modern  Russian  name  for  God,  Bog, 
and  the  ancient  Iranian  Baga? 

But  it  may  be  asked  why  was  so  tiny  a creature  as  the 
humming-bird  selected  as  the . attendant  of  so  terrible  a 
god?  The  answer  is  hidden  in  the  impenetrable  mists  of 
mythology.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  it  was  a universal  Aryan 
custom  to  assign  various  animals  as  attendants  (simulacra  ?) 
or  even  as  guides  to  gods  and  demi-gods.  Witness  the 
owl  of  Pallas,  the  garuda  of  Vishnu,  the  mouse  of  Apollo 
and  the  woodpecker  and  wolf  of  the  Italians.  The  un- 
known god  who  appeared  to  the  Inca  (Falb,  Land  of  the 
Inca ) was  accompanied  by  a black  dog. 

The  Algonquin  Manabozho  is  doubtless  opochtli. 
Manabozho  was  a sort  of  protean  deity  who  assumed 
various  forms,  sometimes  grotesque.  Ordinarily  he  -was 
called  the  Great  Hare.  His  father  was  the  west  wind, 
his  mother  granddaughter  of  the  moon  (see  “Climate,” 
p.  135).  In  Natick,  Nanepaushadt  is  moon  or  moon-god. 
In  Scotland  the  west  wind  is  associated  with  the  moon- 
myth.  Manabozho  recreated  the  world  after  the  deluge.1 

Besides  the  name  bozho  an  additional  link  connects 


i See  Parkman,  Introduction  to  Jesuits  in  North  America.  In  spite  of  his 
absurd  attributes  he  was  considered  chief  of  all  the  Manitous,  a position  accord- 
ing well  with  Savitri-Baga-Uitzilopochtli.  He  also  granted  the  Indians  immor. 
tality,  but  a curious  squaw  opened  the  packet  and  the  gift  escaped.  Here  is  a 
legend  evidently  parallel  to  the  myth  of  Pandora’s  box ; Bureau  of  Ethnology 
Report  for  1890-93 , Menominee  Vocabulary:  Manabiisha=mtisha,  great  -f-wabus, 
rabbit,  sic ? 


THE  PBIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMEEIOA 


117 


this  god  with  the  Hindu  pantheon.  He  was  called  the 
Great  Hare  and  was  a descendant  of  the  moon.  The 
Hindus  see  a hare  or  a gazelle  in  the  moon  instead  of  a 
man,  but  the  Tartars  also  reverenced  the  moon.1 

Even  the  Spaniards  appeared  affected  by  the  humming- 
bird myth  since  it  is  related  (Chimalpahin,  Annals,  year 
1581)  that  a humming-bird  attended  Friar  Martin  de 
Valencia  in  his  solitary  meditations  and  prayers. 

The  name  for  woman  in  Mexican  is  cihuatl.  In  Tupi 
it  is  simply  ci,  mother.  The  Sanskrit  giva  is  the  phonetic 
equivalent  of  these  words.  It  means  kind,  gracious, 
lovely.  The  horrible  god  Qiva  (Siva)  “the  gracious  one,” 
is  one  of  the  Hindu  trinity  to  this  day,  and  his  name  is 
also  a euphemism.  A few  words  more  as  to  Tetzauitl 
which  was  an  appellation  of  Uitzilopochtli.3  A celestial 
phenomenon,  tetzauitl,  “terrible  thing,”  in  the  year  1509, 
excited  terror  among  the  Mexicans.  It  was  a great  light 
in  the  heavens  which  appeared  nightly  for  months.  From 
Chimalpahin’s  description  it  is  hard  to  believe  it  a comet. 
Tetzauitl  as  an  appellation  of  Uitzilopochtli  plainly  marks 
him  as  a devil-god.  I derive  it  from  Sanskrit,  dasfi,  evil 
demon -\-vid,  to  know,  a seer;  Icelandic,  vit-ki;  English, 
witch ; Anglo-Saxon,  wicca.  Tetzauitl  stands  for  the  evil 
side  of  Uitzilopochtli.  Will  any  one  claim  that  these  refer- 
ences, analogies  and  derivations,  are  unscientific  or  mere 
coincidences?  But  there  is  more. 

1 Carpini,  Dawn  of  Modern  Geography , Vol.  Ill,  p.  284.  The  same  may  be 
said  of  the  Hottentots  and  other  tribes,  Cyclopedia  of  Superstitions. 

2 See  “ Nauauatzin,”  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology , p.  13,  and  “deities,” 
p.  161,  infra. 

Much  futile  and  some  absurd  speculation  has  been  indulged  in  by  writers 
on  the  subject  Mexican  mythology.  Uitzilopochtli  has  been  considered  as  a per- 
sonification of  the  powers  of  nature  and  the  word  uitzilin  even  applied  to  the 
whisperings  of  an  oracle.  The  Michoacan  legend  says  Tezpi  (Noah)  sent  out 
uitzilin  to  explore  the  waters.  An  extended  account  of  Uitzilopochtli  may  be 
found  in  Kingsborough’s  Mexican  Antiquities , Vol.  VII,  Book  III,  pp.  103  if. ; also 
Native  Races  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 


118 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


The  Assyrian  Bel,  Hebrew  Baal,  was  one  of  the  most 
puissant  gods  of  western  Asia.  He  was  supreme  at  Baby- 
lon, Baalbec,  Carthage  and  elsewhere.  Without  going 
into  the  origin  of  his  name,  it  is  possibly  connected  with 
the  Sanskrit  verb  palaya,  to  protect,  because  bel  also  meant 
a secular  lord,  a feudal  protector.  The  Mexicans  also  have 
the  phrase,  ipal  nemoani,  *Nebo-Ana?  *nembo-ana?  for 
God,  that  is,  “He  who  walks  with  the  living”  or  “Him 
through  whom  men  live.”  Ipal,  “his  pal,”  in  this  case 
evidently  means  protector.  But  I should  add  that  the 
connection  between  Mexican  and  Assyrian  in  this  case  is 
only  in  the  phase  of  suggestion. 

Altepetl  means  town,  in  Mexican.  Al  is  separable, 
tepetl  means  hill  or  mountain,  as  in  “Popocatepetl,”  “the 
mountain  smokes.”  In  the  Assyrian  cuneiform  writings 
alu  was  always  placed  as  a catch  word  before  sentences 
describing  or  referring  to  cities. 

In  Mexican,  colli  is  house,  or  a public  building; 
chantli,  is  a dwelling;  ekalli  in  Assyrian  is  palace  (c  = k). 
Kal’a  was  a Sassanian  palace.  Nacatl  is  meat  in  Mexican; 
in  Egypt  (where  camel’s  flesh  is  eaten)  it  means  she- 
camel. 

The  Deluge. — Noah  (Noakh)  in  Hebrew  is  defined 
rest.  In  the  opinion  of  some  critics  it  really  is  the  name 
of  a people  instead  of  a man.  Oppert  believes  Noah 
to  be  anu , a god;  and  Abel  to  be  a.bilu , son.  The  Semites 
called  the  Accadians  adamatu,  “red  race,”  and  it  seems  to 
be  agreed  upon  that  Adam  was  a red  man.  The  Nahna,  or 
Non,  were  one  of  the  tribes  of  the  Nauatlaca.  Noakhali  is  a 
district  of  Bengal.1 

1 These  references  to  Semitic  culture  were  written  at  the  time  when  I believed 
the  Mexicans  to  be  closely  associated  with  the  Semites.  They  are  aUowed  to 
stand  here  for  what  they  may  be  worth,  if  anything.  They  are  not  wholly  value- 
less because  it  is  certain  that  the  ancient  Aryans  were  at  various  times  in  contact 


THE  PBIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


119 


The  Mexicans,  like  all  nations,  had  a tradition  of  the 
deluge.  Coxcox  was  their  Noah  and  eight  people  were 
saved  in  an  ark  called  tlaptli  petlacalli.  In  an  Aztec 
painting  he  is  represented  as  floating  on  a log  on  the  waste 
of  waters.  This  phrase  is  not  easily  explained.  It  is  easy 
to  get  the  modern  Indian  significations,  but  what  were  the 
original  meanings?  It  must  be  remembered  that  Mexican 
is  a non-literary  language  and  for  lack  of  continuous  his- 
tory of  words,  only  comparative  philology  will  help  us 
out.  Tlaptli  means  a coffer,  and  petlacalli,  literally,  “a 
mat-house,”  that  is,  not  made  of  mats  but  made  like  a mat, 
probably  of  wicker  or  woven  fabric.  It  would  seem,  at 
first  glance,  as  rather  a childish  conception,  that  of  an  ark 
made  of  mats  or  wicker  work.  But  on  the  authority  of 
Dr.  Peters,  who  conducted  the  explorations  in  Babylonia, 
for  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  boats  are  made  there 
today  precisely  in  that  fashion.  A framework  of  wattles, 
interwoven,  is  thickly  covered  with  pitch,  and  such  a boat 
will  support  a team  of  horses.  If  the  Mexicans  ever  used 
petra  for  stone,  of  which  I have  no  evidence,  then  petla- 
calli would  mean  stone  or  pitch  (?)  house. 

Tlaptli,  a coffer,  may  possibly  be  derived  from  the  San- 
skrit root  trp,  to  sustain,  nourish.  This  meaning,  the  ark 
would  satisfy.  Petlatl  (in  petlacalli)  may  also  be  explained 
figuratively.  In  Mexican  court  language,  “icpalli  ihuan 
petlatl,”  “seat  and  mat”  were  symbols  of  authority. 
Hence  the  whole  phrase  “tlaptli  petlacalli”  might  mean 
something  like  this:  “the  ruler’s  or  patriarch’s  house 
which  sustained  us.”  Nothing  in  the  phrase  even  hints 
at  boat.  The  Mexican  name  for  boat  is  acalli,  “water- 
house.”  It  is  further  to  be  remarked  that  the  ark  of  the 

with  Semites  and  Turanians.  Even  today  an  Afghan  tribe  claims  Hebrew 
descent.  A very  different  derivation  is  given  for  Nahua  in  Mexican  in  Aryan 
Phonology , p.  12. 


120 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


covenant  was  really  a coffer,  and  until  lately  a meal  chest 
was  called  an  ark  in  the  north  of  England.1  [A  better 
derivation  of  tlaptli  is  tr  + ap  = “ across  the  waters.”] 

Like  the  Babylonians,  the  Nauatlaca  recognized  the 
male  and  female  principle  in  their  deity,  as  is  clearly 
shown  in  the  following  quotation  from  Chimalpahin’s 
Annals,  year  1519.  “Auh  in  aquin  oquigaco  in  teotl,  in 
tonantiz,  in  totatiz.”  But  he  who  has  come  [Cortez]  is 
god,  our  mother,  our  father.  The  female  in  such  cases  is 
always  mentioned  first. 

What  then  is  the  purport  of  all  these  references  to 
Hindus,2 3  Assyrians,  and  Hebrews?  That  the  Nauatlaca 
are  descended  from  all  of  them  jointly?  By  no  means, 
but  it  is  evident  that  these  red  immigrants  to  America 
were  once  in  close  touch  with  the  ancestors  of  all  these 
nations.  Indications  point  to  the  highlands  of  western 
Asia,  the  country  of  the  Elamites,  as  the  original  seat  of 
the  Nauatlaca.  Elam  is  given  as  Hebrew  for  Aryan.  A 
grammatical  expression,  “in  Susinak,”  identical  with 


1 Pushita  is  the  Indian  name  of  a township  in  Auglaize  County,  Ohio.  Com- 
pare it  with  Pushan  a Vedic  deity  or  with  Uitzil-o-pocft-tli.  Illinois  is  the  French 
rendering  of  IlJini,  an  Indian  appellation  in  the  Delaware,  inini,  men.  It  vio- 
lates no  law  of  phonetics  or  historical  probability  to  derive  illini  (inini)  from 
ilu,  Assyrian,  a god  (plural,  ilani).  And  here  we  are  brought  face  to  face  with 
the  fact  that  all  the  ancient  peoples  believed  that  they  were  a “ chosen  people,” 
or  in  some  measure  under  divine  protection,  and  many  tribes  claimed  divine 
ancestry.  This  reduces  the  Hebrew  claim  “Chosen  People,”  to  an  insignificant 
historical  incident.  But  a derivation  of  Illini  directly  from  Iran  is  better.  Com- 
pare Eirin,  Erin,  Ireland. 

The  swastika,  a mysterious  symbol,  belts  the  earth  by  way  of  Java, 

Egypt,  Spain,  and  Arizona.  It  is  generally  supposed  to  be  a religious  symbol, 
but  Falb  ( Land  of  the  Inca)  thinks  it  represents  the  ancient  hand  mills.  The 
name  is  Sanskrit,  meaning  “well-being,”  or  simply  “good  luck.”  The  swastika 
has  lately  been  found  at  Moundville,  Ala.,  U.  S.  A.  Mr.  Wardle  ( Harper's  Maga- 
zine, January,  1906)  who  conducted  the  explorations,  calls  it  merely  a sign  of  the 
cardinal  points.  The  vase  in  question  carries  the  form  + ■ 

3 The  marriage  customs  of  the  Aztecs  greatly  resembled  those  of  the  Hindus, 
Prescott,  Conquest  of  Mexico , Appendix.  For  superstitions  see  Elphinstone,  His- 
tory of  India,  Vol.  I,  Bk.  I,  chap,  iv,  p.  76. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


121 


modern  Mexican  syntax,  occurs  in  an  inscription  of  the 
Elamites,  1200  b.  c.,  according  to  a translation  by  Jacques 
de  Morgan.  The  country  of  the  Mekhirani  was  overrun 
and  devastated  by  Ezar  Hadon  081  b.  c. 

The  Mexican  termination,  “catl”  (Sanskrit,  Qatru  or 
§attru?)  as  in  Aztecatl,  may  sometimes  possibly  mean 
“lord  of”  and  may  be  Katur,  of  which  Chedor  is  the 
Hebrew  equivalent  according  to  Sayce,1  and  Chedor-Lao- 
mer  (Lagomer)  was  one  of  the  kings  mentioned  in  Gen- 
esis (14: 9). 2 Katur- Mabug  resembles  the  name  of  the 
Mexican  official  t\a-maocatl  = Mabug-a-t\.  Everything 
discoverable  in  the  Mexican  language  then  points  to  the 
fact  that  it  must  be  of  extreme  antiquity. 

Pre-Columbian  discoveries.  — I may  as  well  refer  to 
“pre-Columbian  Discoveries”  of  America,  though  the  sub- 
ject seldom  touches  upon  philology,  and  has  only  a remote 
bearing  here.  Only  one  of  these  discoveries,  in  so  far  as 
I am  aware,  has  any  philological  bearing  on  the  origin  of 
any  tribe  of  Indians,  and  that  is  told  in  the  story  of  Madoc 
or  Madog,  a Welsh  prince  who  is  said  to  have  sailed  west- 
ward from  his  native  country  early  in  the  eleventh  century 
and  never  returned.  From  this  fact,  if  it  be  a fact,  has 
sprung  some  Welsh  myths  connected  with  the  Indians  of 
North  America.  In  “Lives  of  Famous  Indian  Chiefs” 
(quoted  from  Baldwin,  Ancient  America ) may  be  found  a 
remarkable  affidavit  by  the  Reverend  Morgan  Jones  who 
“certifies”  that  he  was  wrecked  in  the  year  1660  at  Port 
Royal  [S.  C.]  where  he  held  conversation  with  the  Tusca- 
rora  Indians  in  British  (Welsh),  and  “did  preach  to  them 

l A.  H.  Sayce,  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments , p.  164. 

2I  have  not  been  able  to  determine  “catl”  as  a separable  affix  nor  to  con- 
nect Mekhirani  with  the  puzzling  word  Mexica.  The  same  applies  to  “otl”  as 
an  abstract  termination.  The  word  Katur , Katir,  is  still  in  use  in  Kafiristan  with 
a doubtful  meaning,  probably  a horseman  or  lord. 


122 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


three  times  a week.”  George  Catlin  also  tells  a somewhat 
similar  story  of  the  language  of  the  Mandans,1  and 
although  he  asserts  that  the  Mandans  are  extinct , contrary 
to  the  fact,  he  tells  the  story  of  their  tragic  end  with  such 
circumstantial  detail  that  I think  there  must  be  some  con- 
fusion of  names  as  to  the  tribe  in  question. 

1 Norman  Wood,  Lives  of  Famous  Indian  Chiefs , Aurora,  111.  Catlin,  Indians 
of  North  America , p.  759.  Catlin’s  list  of  words  will  not  bear  scientific  scrutiny. 
The  affidavit  of  Rev.  Morgan  Jones  I leave  to  the  individual  opinions  of  my 
readers.  This  matter  is  discussed  fully  by  Bancroft,  Native  Races  of  the  Pacific 
Coast. 


CHAPTER  XV 


Origin  of  the  Nadatlaoa. — Historical  Evidences — The  Migra- 
tion— “Chichi” — “Tlacochcalca” — Meaning  of  Aztec — The 
Aztlan  Myth. 

Tribes. — It  now  remains  to  set  down  the  little  that  is 
known  about  the  wanderings  of  the  people  of  Anahuac.  All 
the  writers  tell  us  that  there  were  three  important  tribes 
who  successively  arrived  at  the  Mexican  lakes.  First  came 
the  Toltecs,  “architects,”  who  were  supposed  to  have  been 
artisans.  Some  derive  the  name  from  tollin,  a reed,  a 
rush(  ?),  some  from  Tollan-Aztlan.  They  were  builders  of 
fixed  habitations.  Next  were  the  Chichimecs,  who  were 
supposed  to  have  been  a pastoral  people  because  the  uame 
is  defined  “he  who  sucks.”1  Lastly  came  the  Aztecs.  Why 
were  they  not  called  the  “bronze  workers,”  from  ctes,  cop- 
per, asi,  ensis,  a sword,  and  “ tecatl ,”  master  of?  In  fact, 
Quetzalcoatl,  “the  fair  god,”  is  said  to  have  taught  them 
the  art  of  casting  metals.2  He  was  also  a law-giver  and 
instituted  the  book  of  martyrology.  All  these  people 
came  from  Aztlan  in  the  north. 

The  Sanskrit  must  usually  be  given  first  place  in  things 
Mexican  and  as  means  (1)  to  be,  to  exist,  asura,  a god; 
(2)  to  shoot,  to  dart;  and  from  this  last  we  may  get  the 
idea  copper,  if  lances  were  tipped  with  bronze.  But  if  we 
take  as,  (1)  then  we  may  get  as-ura,  the  gods,  and 

1 See  discussion  of  Chichimecatl,  p.  39,  note. 

2Quetzalcoatl=  quetzalli,  a plume  + coatl.  a serpent,  hence  “plumed  ser- 
pent.” Boa  was  the  Babylonian  serpent  god,  the  serpent  of  the  garden  of  Eden, 
no  doubt  (Rawlinson).  H oa  may  be  the  equivalent  of  the  Mexican  coa.  Hoa  was 
not  originally  an  evil  personification.  Since  coatl  is  derived  from  Sanskrit  cubh 
it  would  be  necessary  to  show  a corresponding  phonetic  change  in  Assyrian,  or  a 
direct  borrowing  on  one  side  or  the  other. 

123 


124 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Aztlan  may  become  “the  land  of  the  gods,”  Germanic 
aes-ir;  Irish,  ms-sidhe,  “god  land;”  possibly  a land 
specially  ruled  or  favored  by  the  gods  as  was  ancient 
Palestine  in  the  estimation  of  the  Hebrews.  This  second 
view  is  very  probable.  The  Nauatlaca,  especially  the 
Mexicans,  were  eminently  religions,  as  is  evidenced  by 
their  turning  back  to  their  own  country  to  worship.  The 
Mexicans  had  an  important  official  called  Teohuateuctli,  a 
word  which  means  “near  to,  or  guardian  of,  sacred  things.” 
Doubtless  he  was  a sort  of  pontifex  maximus  or  high- 
priest. 

Chichi  is  defined  by  the  lexicographers,  Molina  and 
Simeon,  as  dog,  and  mecatl  is  a whip,  a cord.  This  would 
give  us  “dog  whip;”  and  Cliichimeca,  “masters  of  dogs,” 
but  also  interpreted,  no  doubt  falsely,  simply  “dogs”  and 
suggesting  a people  who  may  once  have  sledged  with  dogs 
in  the  far  north.  This  would  also  suggest  that  the  Chichi- 
mecs  came  to  America  overland  by  way  of  Alaska.1  In 
the  face  of  this,  is  the  definition,  “one  who  sucks,”  but 
Sanskrit  dhi,  means  also  pious,  and  dhr,  chi,  means  bear 
(stout),  Opo-vos,  hence  I do  not  advance  the  dog-sledge 
view  as  a hypothesis,  but  merely  as  a suggestion,  and  to 
illustrate  the  difficulties  which  surround  this  subject. 
But  these  few  lines  of  speculation  are  perhaps  more  than 
sufficient.  The  Chichimecs  were  supposed  to  have  left 
Aztlan,  in  the  north  somewhere,  about  the  year  50  A.  D.2 

The  northern  tribes  around  Puget  Sound,  the  Sho- 
shbnes,  and  farther  south  the  Utes  and  the  Moquis  have 

1 Chichi  means  breasts,  hence  milk,  in  Japanese,  also  father;  it  is  derived 
from  Sanskrit,  dhi,  to  suck,  but  dhi  also  means  devotion.  Hence  this  word  applied 
to  the  Cliichimeca,  “dogs,”  in  derision  was  accepted  by  them  as  a term  of  honor. 
See  p.  39,  note. 

2 An  important  date  is  1091  A.  D.,  when  they  “reformed”  the  calendar.  But 
according  to  Veytia  an  earlier  “reform”  took  place  at  a meeting  of  Toltec  astron- 
omers, 134  b.  c.,  in  Ueuetlapallan  (Balkh?). 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


125 


been  classed  as  the  Uto-Aztecan  stock.  In  47  Shdshone 
words  I found  21  apparently  akin  to  Nauatl. 

The  Toltecs,  says  Clavijero  (Vol.  I,  p.  112),  began 
their  migration  596  A.  D.  and  traveled,  always  southward, 
for  one  hundred  and  four  years.  Their  arrival  at  Tula 
(Mexico)  was  about  690?  A.  D.  According  to  this  account 
Aztlan  could  have  been  a country  situated  at  an  immense 
distance.  It  is  supposed  that  all  these  tribes  came  from 
Aztlan.  But  Te^oyomoc  says  the  Aztecs  required  only 
twenty-three  years  for  the  migration. 

Chimalpahin  Quauhtlehuanitzin,  a descendant  of  Indian 
kings,  was  born  1579.  He  was  near  enough  to  the  con- 
quest, beyond  doubt,  to  have  access  to  Aztec  documents 
now  lost  which  he  could  decipher.  The  traditions  of  the 
Aztec  empire  still  lived  in  his  time.  He  is  a careful,  trust- 
worthy writer,  and  his  Annals  have  been  called  the  Mexican 
classic.  I shall  follow  him  a little  farther. 

In  places,  Chimalpahin  is  vague,  owing  as  he  frankly 
confesses,  to  the  fact  that  he  did  not  know  what  the  exact 
facts  were.  His  pages  teem  with  names  of  tribes  and 
places,  long  bizarre  names  which,  to  anyone  who  does  not 
understand  Mexican,  seem  hopelessly  barbaric.  It  would 
be  useless  to  try  to  follow  him  far  in  one  short  chapter, 
but  the  leading  facts  may  readily  be  culled  from  among 
the  minor  details.  I will  quote  the  opening  sentence  of 
Chimalpahin’s  “Sixth  Relation.”  To  understand  the  date, 
an  understanding  of  the  Mexican  calendar  is  necessary.1 

XIII  Tochtli  Xiuitl,  1258  Anos — Inic  ualquizque  in  Xicco 
in  Chichimeca  in  intlan  Chalca  in  oncan  catca  XVIII  xiuitl,  in 
atenco  cenca  quipopouhtinenca,  inic  Chichimeca  in  tlein  quichi- 
uaya  quimilhuiya  Atempaneca. 

i For  calendar  see  Prescott,  Conquest  of  Mexico , Vol.  I,  chap,  i;  Introduction 
to  Chimalpahin’s  Annals,  ed.  Simeon;  and  Veytia,  Calendarios  Mexicanos , Pub. 
Mus6o  Nacional  de  Mexico,  1907. 


126 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Translation. 

XIII  year  rabbit,  1258  a.  d. — Then  the  Chichimecs  repaired 
to  Xicco  where  had  dwelt  the  Chalcas  for  eighteen  years,  occu- 
pying themselves  with  the  art  of  divination  (?)  by  the  water  side, 
for  which  reason  the  Chichimecs  called  them  Atempaneca. 

The  year  1258  a.  d.  is  then  Chimalpahin’s  first  definite 
date  in  his  very  brief  “Sixth  Relation,”  as  edited  by 
R6mi  Simeon,  though  in  his  introduction  to  the  “Seventh 
Relation”  he  begins  with  the  confusion  of  tongues  at  the 
tower  of  Babel  and  dwells  on  the  wickedness  of  Nimrod. 
This  is  merely  a restatement  of  the  biblical  account;  but 
recent  discoveries  make  it  probable  that  the  Indians  did 
possess  reasonably  definite  knowledge  of  events  which 
occurred  thousands  of  years  ago.1  Cyrus  Thomas,  as 
stated  in  chap,  xv,  discussing  the  Maya  inscriptions  of 
Yucatan,  alludes  to  dates  about  4,000  years  anterior  to  the 
date  of  the  inscriptions,  which  he  thinks  may  have  been 
written  not  long  before  the  Christian  era,  thus  reaching 
back  over  6,000  years.  Mr.  Thomas  discredits  these  dates 
as  wholly  improbable,  but  at  least  they  justify  further 
investigation  before  they  are  summarily  dismissed. 
Mexican  writers  allude  to  old  records  which  appear  to  have 
been  chronicles  from  their  name,  as,  for  example,  the 
teoamoxtli,  sacred  book,  of  the  Chichimecs. 

The  Tlacochcalca. — A tribe  repeatedly  mentioned  by 
the  Indian  chronicler  is  the  Tlacochcalca.  It  may  be  only 
a coincidence,  but  the  syllable  “ coch ” of  this  word  is  phone- 
tically equivalent  to  “ cush ” in  Cushites.  The  Cushites 

1 1 see  no  way  whatever  of  verifying  these  positive  dates  at  present. 

“The  aborigines  of  America  have  preserved  a clearer  and  more  accurate 
remembrance  of  the  great  archaic  events  narrated  in  Holy  Writ  than  the  natives 
of  the  eastern  hemisphere,  with  the  only  exception  of  the  chosen  people  of  God.” — 
B.  P.  De  Roo,  America  befoi-e  Columbus , Vol.  I,  p.  211. 

“There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Toltecs  had  a clear  and  distinct  knowledge 
of  the  universal  deluge,  of  the  confusion  of  tongues,  and  of  the  dispersion  of  the 
people.” — Francesco  Saverio  Clavijero,  History  of  Mexico,  Vol.  I,  p.  116. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


127 


are  lost  in  the  obscurity  of  forgotten  ages.  They  were, 
for  one  thing,  an  Ethiopian  people,  as  is  definitely  asserted 
by  the  ancient  Egyptians.  But  some  authorities  claim 
that  they  originated  in  Arabia.  The  pre-Semitic  language 
and  people  of  Babylonia  were  certainly  Cushitic.  What 
does  the  word  mean?  Evidently  “The  Bowmen”  since 
tlacochtli  is  an  arrow  in  Mexican.1  Another  name  for 
the  Tlacochcalca  was  Nontiaques,  and  Nandi  is  another 
name  for  Siva  “the  glorious  one.” 

This  tribe  apparently  equaled  in  importance,  if  they 
did  not  surpass,  the  Mexicans  themselves.  He  says  this 
tribe  left  Aztlan  or  Aztlan-Chicomoztoc,  that  is,  Aztlan  of 
the  Seven  Caves,  about  1272  a.  d.  This  place  or  country 
was  called  Tlapallan.  A long  interval  elapses  between 
the  building  of  the  tower  of  Babel  and  1272  A.  d.  Hence 
we  have  practically,  as  yet,  nothing  but  tradition  and  the 
evidence  of  comparative  philology  to  fill  up  the  gap.  The 
Chichimeca  left  Aztlan  about  50  A.  D.,  the  Azteca,  1064 
A.  d.,  arriving  at  Tlalixco  about  1087  A.  d.  To  formulate 
from  the  Annals  any  hypothesis  as  to  the  routes  traveled 
by  the  Indians  or  their  manner  of  transport,  would  be 
unsafe,  though  Chimalpahin  says  the  Chichimeca  traveled 
by  boat  (Second  Relation,  year  50). 2 Yet  most  writers 
agree  that  the  Toltecs  preceded  the  Chichimecs.  There 
evidently  exists  either  a confusion  of  names  or  a confusion 

1 This  was  written  comparatively  early  in  my  investigations.  It  is  allowed 
to  stand  since  it  is  not  improbable  to  suppose  contact  between  these  peoples  at  a 
very  early  date. 

The  word  kuch,  a tribe,  appears  in  India  as  late  as  the  fifteenth  century. 
The  Turkish  word  for  bird  is  kush;  English  cushat  the  ring-dove,  hence  the  idea 
of  flight  may  have  been  the  potent  factor  in  naming  an  arrow.  Khasti  is  a bow  in 
Assyrian.  Since  writing  this  I have  found  a curious  confirmation  of  my  hypothesis 
in  “Prehistoric  Mound ville”  by  H.  Newell  Wardle,  Harper's  Magazine , January, 
1908.  A copper  arrow-head  was  found  modeled  somewhat  after  a bird’s  head. 
Mr.  Moore  of  the  Bureau  of  Ethnology  arrives  at  the  same  conclusion  regarding 
the  bird  and  the  arrow.  See  p.  141,  infra. 

2 Quoted  by  Simeon  from  MS . 


128 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


of  dates,  else  the  Chichimecs  were  several  hundred  ijears 
on  the  ivay,  which  is  not  probable. 

Chimalpahin  says  that  when  the  Tlacochcalcas  left 
Tlapallan,1  they  traversed  a great  sea  on  the  shells  of  turtles 
(boats  of  that  form  or  name,  probably)  and  reached  a 
great  river,  the  course  of  which  they  followed.2  Then 
they  returned  again  toward  the  east  (?),  to  perform 
religious  duties  before  the  sun.  For  this  reason  they 
were  called  Teotlixca,  that  is,  “ face  to  face  ivith  God .” 
This  last  name  suggests  another  difficulty  which  adds  to 
the  confusion.  Here  was  the  name  of  a tribe  changed, 
owing  to  a single  fact  in  their  history,  and  we  have  already 
seen  (p.  126)  how  the  Chichimecs  changed  the  name  of  the 
Chalcas.  It  will  be  observed  that  these  people  were  very 
pious.  Again  they  crossed  the  sea  and  this  time  visited 
“Mermaid  Land.”  They  crossed  the  sea  in  two  places, 
landed  on  a large  island  and  explored  it,  and  soon  after 
arrived  in  Xiuhpetlapan,  1272  A.  d.,  where  they  remained 
a year.  Next  they  came  to  11  Spider  Mountain"3  and  then 
to  llSnake  Mountain ” and  later  to  a place  where  the 
timber  or  scrub  was  so  thick  that  they  had  to  cut  their 
way  through  it. 

It  will  be  seen  that  all  this,  while  specific,  is  bewilder- 
ing, because  we  cannot  identify  positively  one  single  place 
and  such  a name  as  “Snake  Mountain”  affords  no  clue. 

l Tlapallan.  — Tbe  synonyms  for  this  place  are  Aztlan,  Chicomoztoc,  Tzo- 
tzompa,  Nonohualco,  Quinehuayan,  Teocolhuacan,  Tula,  Tollan,  Amaquemecan, 
Temoanchan.  I have  already  discussed  the  two  first.  But  I fear  efforts  to  reach 
convincing  derivations  for  the  others  are  futile  [see  chap.  xvi].  Not  all 
add  Amaquemecan  and  Temoanchan.  The  Mexicans  call  the  north  th e right  hand ; 
the  south,  the  left  hand.  This  is  the  reverse  of  the  Hindu  method.  It  may  be 
considered  as  one  proof  that  the  Aztecs  came  from  the  went.  In  the  ceremony  of 
“binding  up  the  years,”  mo’lpilli  in  xiuitl,  which  occurred  at  the  end  of  each 
cycle  of  fifty-two  years,  the  officiating  priest  always  faced  the  went. 

2Was  this  river  the  Tigris-Euphrates  to  the  sea  or  the  Hoang-Ho  to  the  sea? 

3Cf.  the  “Earth  Spiders,”  cave  dwellers,  of  Japan;  Batchelor,  The  Ainu. 
Xiuhpetlapan , is  the  “country  of  grass  mats.” 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


129 


The  only  large  islands  worthy  that  name  in  the  north 
Pacific,  and  which  necessitate  crossing  a “Great  Sea”  to 
reach  them,  are  the  Hawaiian  Islands.  The  only  great 
rivers  (on  this  side)  are  the  Sacramento  and  the  Columbia, 
unless  we  adopt  the  Alaskan  route  and  the  islands  which 
constitute  the  extension  of  the  Alaskan  Peninsula.1  There 
are  strong  arguments  against  the  probability  of  the 
peopling  of  America  from  the  Pacific  side.  In  fact  it  is 
positively  asserted  that  America  was  inhabited  at  the 
close  of  the  glacial  age  by  immigrants  from  western 
Europe  who  came  by  a northern  route.2 

Aztlan. — Where  was  Aztlan-Chicomoztoc?  Possibly  it 
was  in  North  America  and  the  Great  Lakes  were  the  sea,  as 
before  remarked.  There  has  been  much  puzzling  over  the 
situation  of  Aztlan  and  the  meaning  of  the  word.  Some 
think  it  is  cognate  with  aztatl,  the  egret  heron  and  place 
the  “Seven  Cav6s”  on  the  south  Atlantic  or  Gulf  coasts, 
or  specifically  in  Florida.  But  there  are  no  caves  in 
Florida,  and  aztatl  cannot  be  connected  easily  with  Aztlan. 

According  to  De  Roo,  there  is,  or  was,  a small  pyrami- 
dal mound  on  an  islet  in  Lake  George,  Florida.  Humboldt 
describes  a Mexican  painting  representing  Aztlan,  as  a 
small  island  with  a teocalli  and  a palm  tree  growing  near 
to  the  temple.  Florida  abounds  in  palm  trees,  but  ap- 
parently the  insuperable  objection  to  supposing  Aztlan  to 
be  in  Florida  is  Chicomoztoc,  “the  Seven  Caves;”  con- 
stantly mentioned  in  connection  with  Aztlan.  Remi 
Simeon  appears  to  think  it  a fact  that  the  Chichimecs 

1 Also  see  reference  to  O.  T.  Mason’s  sea-route,  Indo-Malaysian.  Keane, 
Ethnology , p.  365. 

2 D.  G.  Brinton,  American  Race , p.  28.  But  Petitot  in  Asiatic  Origin  of  the 
Esquimaux  makes  equally  convincing  arguments  for  the  other  side  of  the  ques- 
tion, such  as  the  finding  of  drawings  of  monkeys  and  elephants,  on  Esquimaux 
tombs,  traditions  of  reindeer  and  the  assistance  the  Japan  current  would  render 
to  boats.  Also  the  west  is  called  by  a word  which  means  behind. 


130 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


divided  into  two  branches,  in  Florida,  one  going  directly 
to  Mexico  led  by  Quetzalcoatl  and  Uemac  and  the  other 
to  Yucatan.  The  former  was  high  priest,  the  latter  regent 
of  the  earth. 

Clavijero  places  Aztlan  east  of  Zacetecas,  and  the  Seven 
Caves  were,  in  his  opinion,  large  buildings,  the  ruins  of 
which  still  exist.  But  Chimalpahin  distinctly  states  that 
the  Tlacochcalcas  crossed  the  “Great  Sea”  after  leaving 
Aztlan.  Boturini  placed  Aztlan  in  Asia.1  But  A.  von 
Humboldt  thought  Aztlan  must  be  sought  in  America 
north  of  the  forty-second  degree  of  latitude.  Chimal- 
pahin’s  reference  to  timber  and  snow  corroborates  this 
view.  Betancourt  placed  it  2700  miles  from  Mexico. 

It  seems  absurd,  however,  to  place  Aztlan  on  the  small 
barren  islands  off  the  coast  of  southern  California  as  some 
writers  have  done.  Those  islands  might  have  been  a tem- 
porary stopping-place,  but  certainly  they  could  not  have 
been  the  permanent  seat  of  any  tribe  worth  considering. 
Furthermore,  Chimalpahin  remarks  that  in  the  year  1274, 
the  Tlacochcalca  reached  a place  where  it  snowed  on  them, 
“ oncan  inpan  ceppayauh .”  If  they  left  Catalina  Island 
and  traveled  south,  they  should  have  reached  in  two  years 
a country  where  it  never  snows  except  on  the  tops  of  the 
very  highest  mountain  peaks.  This  snow  fell  soon  after 
they  passed  through  “the  dark  woods.” 


Clavijero  did  not  know  Boturini’s  reasons  for  this  opinion.  But  Boturini 
may  have  been  right.  It  is  said  that  he  was  a very  learned  man.  As,  in  Aes-ir, 
doubtless  means  something  like  “home  of  the  gods,”  as  before  stated.  Com- 
pare As-gard,  “stronghold  of  the  gods.”  But  there  may  naturally  have  been  a 
new  Aztlan  on  the  American  continent  just  as  there  is  a New  York,  a New 
Spain,  etc.  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg  found  reference  in  a Quich6  MS  to  four 
Tulas,  one  of  which  was  in  the  east  beyond  the  sea.  One  writer  (Prescott,  Vol.  I, 
p.  11,  ed.  note)  thinks  tal,  tol,  tul.  originally  applied  to  the  Himalayas,  the  root 
being  found  in  English  tall,  in  Atlas,  Atlantis,  Italy,  Aitaly,  etc.  Ultima  Thule 
has  also  been  mentioned.  Here  apparently  nothing  is  certain.  There  are  caves 
in  the  sea  cliffs  north  of  San  Diego,  at  la  Jolla. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


131 


It  was  not  the  Tlacochcalcas  alone,  whose  fortunes 
Chimalpahin  follows  specifically,  as  the  following  transla- 
tion will  showT: 

I tochtli  xiuitl,  50. — Nican  ipan  inin  acaltica  in  ohuallaque 
in  ueuetque  Chichimeca  in  motenehua  Teochichimeca;  [also 
called  Azteca]  in  uei  apan  ilhuicaapan  ohuallaque  in  ohaullanel- 
lotiaque,  ompa  qui§aco  achto  oncan  motlallico  in  itocayocan 
Teocolhuacan  Aztlan.  (Second  Relation.) 

Translation : 

1 year  rabbit,  50  a.  d. — Now  the  ancient  Chichimecs,  called 
“the  godly  Chichimecs,”  embarked  on  the  great  sea,  wide  as 
heaven;  they  arrived  by  means  of  oars;  they  landed  and  first 
established  themselves  in  a place  called  (by  them?)  Teocolhua- 
can Aztlan. 

Here  we  have  Aztlan  coupled  with  Teocolhuacan  and 
distinctly  not  the  original  home.  It  was  the  place  of 
“the  Divine  Brotherhood,”  “ca  anepantla  aitic,"  “in 
the  middle  of  the  water.”  Aztlan  was  described  as  a 
delightful  land  in  which  all  were  happy.  Ducks,  herons,  and 
other  water-fowl  abounded.  A variety  of  edible  fishes  swam 
in  beautiful  streams  whose  banks  were  cool  with  refreshing 
shade.  Song  birds  of  bright  colors  enlivened  the  woods 
with  music.  When  the  wanderers  left  this  paradise,  all 
was  changed.  The  land  became  a desert,  the  animals  were 
ferocious,  the  serpents  venomous,  the  shrubs  became  thorns 
to  tear  the  flesh,  and  even  the  worms  were  malignant. 
This  all  sounds  very  much  like  the  story  of  the  expulsion 
from  the  Garden  of  Eden.  The  Aztecs  changed  their 
name  to  Mexican  by  command  of  Uitzilopochtli.  God 
gave  them  the  bow  and  arrow  and  the  fish-net  and  Uitzil- 
opochtli said  to  them:  “Ye  shall  for  the  first  labor.” 
“Yehuantin  yacachto  tequitizquA”1  This  again  sounds 
like  the  primal  curse  that  man  shall  earn  his  bread  by 

■ Dr.  Seler,  Alterthums  Kunde,  Vol.  XI,  pp.  33  if.,  illustrations  of  the 
pilgrimage. 


132 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


toil.  These  people  evidently  considered  themselves  a 
pious,  perhaps  a “chosen”  people,  though  the  Romans 
spoke  of  “pious  Aeneas.”  But  the  chief  points  to  be 
noticed  are  that  they  crossed  a “great  sea”  in  boats  and 
reached  an  island.  Where?  This  account  might  favor 
the  view  that  they  did  not  come  by  way  of  Behring  Strait, 
or  the  Aleutian  Islands,  since  there  is  mention  here  of  but 
one  island.  He  further  says  that  they  arrived  naked , a 
statement  which  precludes  the  northern  passage.1  But  the 
account  here  is  too  concise  and  vague.  The  people  of  the 
Mexican  plateau  were  excessively  superstitious  and  at  the 
same  time  punctilious  in  the  observance  of  their  religion. 
It  was  a common  practice  for  them  to  strip  naked  for  the 
performance  of  certain  rites,  especially  in  the  practice  of 
their  exorcisms.  It  is  possible  that  the  newcomers,  on 
approaching  land,  laid  aside  their  clothing  and  waded 
ashore  in  observance  of  some  religious  rite  or  in  obedience 
to  some  superstition.  In  this  way  they  may  have  literally 
“ arrived  naked.”  It  is  not  probable  that  they  made  a long 
voyage  nude,  for  the  lowest  savages  make  some  pretense  of 
clothing  themselves.  In  classic  usage  naked  sometimes 
merely  meant  unarmed. 

Finally,  it  will  be  observed  that  they  landed  in  Aztlan. 
Hence  the  investigator  must  identify  first  of  all  this  local- 
ity and  its  synonym  Chicomoztoc .2  They  are  one  and  the 
same,  since  all  accounts  agree  on  these  two  places. 

It  is  a noteworthy  fact  that  nowhere  in  these  accounts 
of  the  wanderings  of  the  Nauatlaca  is  there  a single  allu- 

iSim6on  says  pepetlauhtiaque  may  also  be  translated  "in  want.”  I should 
translate  it  “clothed  in  skins,”  or  better  textile  fabric,  grass  or  wild  hemp. 
(See  “ Nudity  Rites,”  p.  157.) 

2 In  a painting  giving  the  history  of  the  Aztecs  from  the  Deluge  to  the  found- 
ing of  Mexico,  1325,  Chicomoztoc  is  given  as  the  seventh  station  from  Aztlan,  but 
this  fact  may  not  be  significant  when  we  consider  that  Tenochtitlan  was  one  sta- 
tion and  Tlatelulco,  its  suburb,  another. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


133 


sion  to  any  meeting  of  hostile  tribes.  There  was  no  fight- 
ing on  the  way.  This  fact  is  certainly  unique  in  all 
history.  The  annals  are  absolutely  silent  on  this  question 
of  inhabitants  of  the  countries  passed  through,  except  one 
instance  where  the  astonishing  statement  is  made  that  they 
met  people  with  three  legs  and  feet  like  birds.1  But  it  is 
not  a reasonable  conclusion  that  America  was  uninhabited 
at  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  the  Nauatlaca. 

The  Mexica-Chichimeca  arrived  at  the  present  site  of 
the  City  of  Mexico  in  1325,  according  to  Chimalpahin. 
Other  writers  assign  different  dates  varying  from  two  to 
sixteen  years.  It  has  been  repeatedly  stated  on  good 
authority  that  the  first  comers  saw  on  an  islet  in  the  lake, 
an  eagle  sitting  on  a cactus  (nochtli),  devouring  a serpent, 
and  from  that  incident  they  named  the  place  Tenochtitlan, 
“place  of  the  cactus.”  This  word,  however,  leaves  out 
entirely  the  serpent  and  the  eagle,  in  spite  of  the  corrob- 
orating evidence  of  the  Mexican  coat-of-arms.  Chimal- 
pahin asserts  that  the  party  was  led  by  the  chief  Tenochtzin 
and  it  is  altogether  probable  that,  like  many  other  founders 
of  cities,  he  called  the  place  after  his  own  name  which  also 
means  a species  of  cactus. 

l This  description  fits  the  sculptures  of  the  demons  in  the  palace  of  Assur- 
banipal  at  Koyunjik.  Also  cf.  Dr.  Sven  Hedin  ( Harper's  Magazine , September, 
1908),  for  realistic  account  of  the  monsters  depicted  on  Buddhist  temples  to 
frighten  away  evil  spirits. 


CHAPTEK  XVI 


The  Aztlan  Legend— Climate — The  “Ten”  Places  of  the  Migra- 
tion— Specific  Appellations — Culture  Names — Spelling  of 

Names — List  of  Geographical  Names  in  Mexico  and  in  Asia. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  Nahua,  like  the 
other  peoples  of  the  world,  had  their  myths  which  go 
back  to  the  very  cradle  of  the  race.  It  is  no  more  to  be 
expected  that  their  myth  places  can  be  identified  positively 
than  that  we  can  identify  the  Garden  of  Eden  positively. 
Aztlan  itself  may  be  such  a myth  name,  though  that 
question  will  be  discussed  after  some  other  names  have 
been  considered.  Let  us  consider  first:  Where  was  the 

Nahua  patria? 

I have  shown  conclusively  that  Nauatl  is  an  Aryan 
language.1  Furthermore,  it  is  closely  related  to  Zend  and 
Sanskrit,  but  nearer  phonetically  to  the  former.  It  is  in 
fact  older  than  either  and  is,  I think,  closely  akin  to  the 
archaic  Aryan  dialects  of  Kafiristan.2  For  example,  it 
retains  the  vigesimal  system  of  numeration  in  common 
with  them  which  all  the  classic  Aryan  languages  have 
discarded.  A Kafir  (“infidel”)  word  for  god  is  deok, 
which  perhaps  survives  in  the  Mexican  teuctli,  a leader 
(or  god).  The  T-ornament  is  still  found  there.  This  was 
the  form  of  Aztec  money.  Animal  sacrifice  still  exists  in 
Kafiristan.  On  the  head-waters  of  the  Oxus  in  Afghan 
Turkestan  we  find  such  culture  names  as  Cutlers'  Vale, 
Smiths'  Vale ; Valley  of  Eye-paint.  With  these  compare 

1 Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology. 

2 The  Dards  and  the  Galchas  have  remained  in  situ  near  the  head-waters  of 
the  Oxus.  The  home  of  the  Indo-Iranian  race  must  have  been  in  this  neighbor- 
hood. R.  N.  Oust,  Modern  Languages  of  the  East  Indies , p.  32. 

134 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


185 


such  Mexican  names  as  Yacapichtlan,  place  of  painted 
noses,  Qacapechco,  place  of  straw  beds.  Notice  further 
that  two  of  these  names  refer  to  handicrafts.  Bronze 
working  was  carried  to  a high  state  of  the  art  in  western 
Asia  and  in  Anahuac.  The  country  is  also  rich  in 
minerals. 

Climate. — This  may  be  as  good  a place  as  any  to  refer 
to  some  curious  facts  in  meteorology.  The  Aztecs  called 
the  west  Cihuatlampan,  “woman’s  region,”  the  “mild 
quarter.”  An  Algonquin  legend  makes  Manabozho  son 
of  the  granddaughter  of  the  moon  and  the  icest  wind.  A 
Scottish  superstition  is  connected  with  the  west  wind. 
“Prayers  to  the  moon  in  the  face  of  a icest  wind  while  it 
is  raining  will  cause  you  to  dream  of  your  future  husband.”1 
The  beneficent  winds  of  the  Pamir  region  which  bring 
the  rain  are  southwest  winds,2  while  in  Mexico  the  trade- 
winds  are  east  winds.  The  Aztec  sacred  quarter  was  the 
west  (chap,  xvii,  “Baptism”).  The  Nahua  called  the  sky 
ilhuica  tliltic,  black  heaven.  In  high  altitudes  the  sky 
looks  black. 

The  “ten”  names.  — Let  us  proceed  to  examine  in 
detail  the  ten  Aztlan  names.  Are  any  of  these  names 
common  to  Mexico  and  Indo-Iranian  Asia?  It  certainly 
is  to  be  expected  that  they  should  be  so  found.  We 
have  English  names  in  America  from  names  in  England. 
We  may  expect  a new  series  of  Aztlan  names  in  the 
new  country  and  it  is  these  new  names  which  have  led 
linguists  and  archaeologists  astray.  The  “ten”  names 
are:  Aztlan,  Chicomoztoc,  Nonohualca,  Quinehuayan, 

Temoanchan,  Tula,  Tola  or  Tullan,  Tollan,  Tlapallan  or 
Ueuetlapallan,  Amaqemecan,  Tzotzompa,  Teocolhuacan. 

1 Cyclopedia  of  Superstitions.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  157  f. 

2 Stanford’s  Compendium  of  Geography , Western  Asia  (ed.  A.  H.  Keane),  p.  131. 


136 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


1.  Teocolhuacan  has  always  been  defined  “the  land  of 
the  divine  brotherhood.”1  Some  of  the  Nahua  called 
themselves  Teotlixca,  “face  to  face  with  god.”  Here  is 
distinctly  a religious  idea.  In  Mexico  we  find  Teotihua- 
can,  twenty-seven  miles  northeast  of  Mexico,  “the  sacred 
city.”  Wakhan  is  a district  on  the  upper  Oxus.  Here 
we  may  have  Teoti  + Uacan,  “Sacred  Wakan.”  Simeon, 
however,  gives  a definition  which  precludes  this,  but,  in 
my  opinion,  Teocolhuacan  maybe  analyzed  teo  + kol  + 
Wakan.  Kol  means  a mountain-pass  in  Asia,  in  Mexican 
a-coZ-li  is  the  collar-bone,  but  it  also  means  tribe. 

2.  Nonohualca  may  be  analyzed  nono  -f-  Ualca.  Nono 
is  probably  a reduplication  of  Noa  or  Nua.2  Cities  of  this 
name  are  today  found  in  Persia,  and  countries  adjoining 
the  east,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  list  on  p.  149.  Ualca 
phonetically  answers  to  Ferghana,  a province  at  the  head 
of  the  Jaxartes,  modern  Khokand,  but  it  may  be  restored 
as  *Galca  = Galcha  ? 

3.  Quineliuayan.  — By  the  rules  of  Mexican  grammar 
this  word  may  be:  (1)  Quine-ua,  land  of  the  Rhine — this 
name  is  found  from  the  head  of  the  Jaxartes  to  the  Pun- 
jab and  is  cognate  with  China ; (2)  it  may  be  Khin-ab, 
river  of  the  Pamirs ; (3)  Khin,  a river  + ehua,  to  rise,  that 
is,  source  of  the  Khin  river;  (4)  by  syncope  of  medial 
k it  might  be  “ Khinaka  people”  but  I find  no  such  name. 

4.  Chicomoztoc,  “the  seven  caves.”  This  is  one  of 
the  most  important  of  the  Aztlan  names  and  one  of  the 
most  puzzling.  It  may  be  discussed  under  three  heads. 
(«)  Chicome  undoubtedly  means  seven  and  oztotl,  a cave. 
In  Russian  it  is  ust,  a mouth,  an  aperture.  I shall  try 

iForthe  existence  of  a “divine  brotherhood  ” in  Asia  from  time  immemorial, 
see  A.  P.  Sinnett,  Esoteric  Buddhism , p.  50. 

2 This  may  also  be  nohua,  people  + vrj,  inclosed,  set  apart,  “the  chosen  peo- 
ple,” Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology , Table  F. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


137 


to  show  that  chicome  may  in  this  case  be  a homonym 
which  does  not  necessarily  mean  seven,  though  I incline 
to  the  literal  interpretation.  The  river  Oxus  is  also 
called  the  Amu  Daria  and  the  Jihun.  The  last  name 
may  be  restored  to  the  ancient  Gihon  for  *Gikon  or 
*Chicon  = Chicom.  Hence  we  have  Jihun-caves.  The 
Grihon  was  one  of  the  rivers  of  Eden.  On  the  head- 
waters of  the  Oxus  are  numerous  caves,  some  of  which 
contain  sculptured  colossi,  giants  ? Here  was  the  ancient 
Zolialc,  a name  which  goes  back  to  the  very  twilight  of 
Persian  tradition.  Zohak,  it  is  said,  was  a wicked  Per- 
sian king  (mythical)  who  invented  the  dreadful  punish- 
ments of  crucifixion  and  flaying  men  alive.1  After  his 
death  the  devil  made  him  head  gate-keeper  in  hell.  It 
will  at  once  be  seen  that  this  spot  may  have  been  “holy” 
for  both  Buddhists  and  the  devil-worshiping  Persians.2 
In  Mexican  the  name  for  giants  is,  in  the  plural,  tzocui- 
lique,  zohacs  ( ?) . This  may  well  be  an  allusion  to  the 
colossi  in  the  caves  at  Zohak.  (6)  If  Chicomoztoc  means 
“ divine ” there  are  two  adequate  explanations.  (1)  San- 
skrit dhi  (chi)  means  devotion;  om  is  a sacred  syllable, 
dhik  is  an  exclamation.  The  repetition  of  om  is  an  act 
of  piety.  This  would  give  us  “the  sacred  caves.”  (2) 
Comitl  in  Mexican  means  a vessel,  earthen  dish,  *combitl; 
Sanskrit,  kumbh&;  Greek,  tcv^l 3rj.  Hence  we  have  dhi, 


1 Cyclopedia  of  Superstitions. — Professor  A.  V.  Williams  Jackson  says  Zohak 
was  a Babylonian  tyrant.  In  Aztec  cosmogony  the  First  Period  or  Golden  Age 
was  also  called  the  •*  age  of  giants.” 

2 The  Chinese  traveler,  Hwen-Tsang,  630-644  A.  D.,  found  here  monasteries 
inhabited  by  Buddhist  monks  and  colossal  statues  of  Buddha  abounded.  Dr. 
Sven  Hedin  ( Harper's  Magazine , August,  1908)  found  encircling  the  Holy  Lake 
Manasowar,  in  the  Pamirs,  eight  gun- pas,  Buddhist  monasteries.  One  he  speaks 
of  as  being  terraced.  It  may  be  partially  a cavern,  natural  or  artificial,  on  that 
point  he  is  silent.  Sanskrit  dhi  (chi)  means  sacred,  dhi-gun-ust-oc  gives  us 
Chicomoztoc,  without  any  reference  to  number.  For  discussion  of  dhi,  see  p.  39, 
note.  En passant,  this  lake  is  big  enough  to  furnish  the  Aryan  word  boat,  nav-is. 


138 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


holy  + cMmft,  a vessel  or  utensil.  If  these  were  temple 
caves  or  even  the  secret  places  of  worship  of  a proscribed 
sect,  we  get  Chi-com-ozt-o-c,  the  caves  of  the  holy  uten- 
sils. (c)  If  chicome  really  means  seven  here,  then  we 
must  satisfactorily  connect  that  number  with  the  caves, 
but  in  any  case  we  are  still  at  the  head-waters  of  the 
Ox  us.  Dr.  Sven  Hedin  mentions  eight  monasteries  at 
the  “Holy  Lake”  Manasowar.  One  might  have  been 
added  to  seven  existing  at  the  time  of  the  Aztec  exodus. 

The  Aztecs  were  undoubtedly  once  in  contact  with 
the  fire-worshipers  (see  chap,  xvii),  in  fact  some  of  the 
Nahua  tribes  must  have  been  fire-worshipers.1  Zoroastri- 
anism, then,  must  be  taken  into  account.  Zoroaster  had 
seven  ecstasies  or  divine  revelations  and  tradition  points 
yet  to  two  of  his  caves  at  Mt.  Sahund  and  Maraghah, 
with  the  fire-altar.2  Below,  in  the  chapter  on  “Religion,” 
“Mitlira  Rites,”  is  discussed  the  importance  of  the 
cavern  in  religious  affairs.  Dr.  Sven  Hedin  gives  a most 
realistic  description  of  the  present  condition  of  hermits 
immured  in  sealed  caverns  in  this  Oxus-Indus  country.3' 
Their  fate  is  dreadful  in  the  extreme.  My  own  cursory 
observation  of  the  “caves”  of  the  hermits  in  the  canon  of 
Mar-Saba,  Judea,  is  in  the  same  line,  except  that  these 
latter  always  appeared  to  have  a square  hole  left  for  the 
admission  of  food  and  water.  Dr.  Hedin  says  that  his 
ears  were  everywhere  and  incessantly  assailed  with  the 
chanting  of  the  sacred  phrase,  “on  mane  padme  hum.” 

It  may  be  thought  that  I have  too  many  alternatives 
in  the  case  of  Chicomoztoc.  I have  tried  to  give  all  the 
possible  explanations  which  my  investigations  prompted. 

iSee  “Mexico,”  chap,  vi,  and  chap,  xvii,  “Fire-Worship.” 

2 A.  V.  Williams  Jackson,  Persia , p.  61;  also  see  note,  Oztomecatl , p.  164. 

3 Dr.  Sven  Hedin,  Harper's  Magazine , September,  1908. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


139 


Whether  this  name  originally  meant  “the  seven  caves,” 
or  “the  holy  caves,”  makes  but  little  difference,  since  the 
localities  are  the  same  in  either  case.  In  fact  it  may  be 
a case  of  two  homonyms  which  in  the  lapse  of  ages  finally 
retained  only  the  most  evident  meaning,  and  were  thus 
merged  into  one  word. 

Seven  in  magic. — It  is  hard  to  escape  the  conclusion 
that  magic  had  something  to  do  with  the  constant  recur- 
rence of  the  number  seven  in  antiquity.  We  have  the 
seven  caves  of  the  Aztecs,  the  seven  ecstasies  of  Zoroaster, 
the  seven  “castles”  of  the  dasyiis  in  the  Vedas,  the  seven 
Amesha  Spent  a , or  holy  immortals,  of  the  Gatlias;  the 
seventh  day  Sabbath  originally  an  unlucky  day,  it  is 
said;  the  siege  of  Jericho,  in  which  seven  priests,  blow- 
ing seven  trumpets  of  ram’s  horns,  led  the  march  round 
the  doomed  city  for  seven  days  and  seven  times  on  the 
seventh  day;  the  seven  golden  candlesticks  of  Solomon’s 
temple;  “and  there  were  seven  lamps  of  fire  burning 
before  the  throne,  which  are  the  seven  spirits  of  God” 
(Rev.  4:5);  “and  the  seven  angels  came  out  of  the 
temple  having  the  seven  plagues”  (Rev.  15:6);  there 
was  the  book  sealed  with  seven  seals  (Rev.  5:1);  the 
beast  with  seven  heads  and  ten  horns  (Rev.  13:1);  the 
gates  of  Troy  shook  seven  times  when  the  wooden  horse 
entered,  and  Rome  was  built  on  seven  hills.  Examples 
of  the  occurrence  of  the  number  seven  might  be  repeated 
indefinitely.  Seven  was  a “sacred”  number  among  the 
Accadians,  Assyrians,  and  Babylonians.  The  “unlucky 
days”  of  the  “Farmers’  Almanac”  are  based  on  this 
ancient  cult. 

5.  Tlapallan  is  one  of  the  most  common  synonyms  of 
Aztlan.  It  must  have  been  a city  of  importance  since 
the  Toltec  astronomers  met  there  and  revised  the  calendar 


140 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OE  AMERICA 


about  134  b.  c.1 2  Tla  is  the  usual  separable  prefix,  hence 
Pattern,  *Paltlan  *Palctlan,  becomes  the  Sanskrit  Bali, 
the  chief  city  of  the  fire-worshipers  and  a holy  city;  in 
Armenian  BahU  In  the  times  of  the  Greek  Bactrian 
kingdom  it  was  called  Zarispa,  from  zari,  yellow,  some 
say,  so  called  because  of  its  bay  horses,  but  Curzon,3  a 
modern  traveler,  was  impressed  with  the  fact  that  the 
river  was  of  a marked  red  hue.  The  Hari-Rud,  Red 
River,  is  today  a river  of  Afghanistan.4 

6.  Temoanchan.  ( 1 ) Temo  means  to  descend.  Anshan 
was  the  primal  seat  of  the  Achaemenian  kings  of  Persia. 
(2)  The  Pandjeh  is  an  important  affluent  of  the  Oxus, 
rising  in  the  Pamir  country.  Temoanchan  may  have  been 
originally  *Temopanchan,  p often  being  dropped  in  such 
cases.  But  the  first  locality  accords  best  in  the  main  with 
the  Aztlan  names  and  traditions.  The  entire  west  slope 
of  the  mountain  country  is  called  by  the  modern  Persians 
“the  slope,”  daman  i-koh,  just  as  we  speak  of  the  Pacific 
slope. 

7.  Tula,  Tola,  Tullan,  Tollan. — Tul  is  the  name  of  a 
pass  in  the  Hindu  Kush  Mountains.  Toll  is  a town  of 
east  Afghanistan.  The  Toltecs  built  “The  Sacred  City” 
Teotihuacan  in  Mexico.5  It  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that 
Tur  may  be  a Turanian  word,  the  root  of  Turanian  itself 
or  from  Accadian  dur , a fortified  place,  as  Dur-Sargina,  a 


1 Review  of  Veytia’s  Calendarios  Mexicanos , Athenaeum , Feb.  15,  1908,  by  A. 
H.  Keane. 

2 1 set  aside  Vamb6ry’s  derivation  from  Turkish  batik,  a city,  as  having 
no  support. 

3 Curzon,  Central  Asia , p.  145. 

♦The  Aztecs  referred  to  Tlapallan  as  the  “old  red  place.”  Doubtless  the 
root  is  Sanskrit  bhraj ; Greek,  ; Latin,  fulgur,  if  balk  meant  red  originally. 

5 Fergusson  says,  History  of  Architecture,  that  no  Aryan  race  were  ever 
distinctly  builders  of  great  mausoleums.  It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  these 
pyramids  were  sepulchral. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


141 


town.  The  Nahua  doubtless  borrowed  words  from  their 
Turanian  neighbors  on  the  north,  and  from  the  Tibetans 
and  Chinese  on  the  east.1 

A positive  case  of  borrowing  occurs  in  Mexican  tepetl, 
mountain,  Turkish  tepe,  as  in  Geok-tepe,  Greek,  rdfas. 
But  who  borrowed?  All  writers  agree  that  the  Aryans 
were  prehistoric  in  all  the  Oxus  country  from  the  Caspian 
to  the  Hindu  Kush.  According  to  Yambery  the  modern 
Tajiks  of  Samarcand  are  of  Aryan  origin.  Iehring  places 
the  primitive  seat  of  the  Aryans  in  the  Hindu  Kush  and 
I think  he  is  right.2  MZtepetl,  town,  suggests  the  Arabic 
article  al  or  Assyrian  alu  city,  but  Arabic  is  too  recent,  in 
the  country  in  question. 

8.  Amaquemecan  may  mean  simply  “the  home  land” 
from  Sanskrit  ama,  at  home  -f-  kamci,  desirable  or  kshema, 
a house;  English,  ham- let.  If  it  is  local  to  Mexico  it 
may  mean  simply  “covered  with  paper  (see  p.  142).  But 
the  root  Kam  continually  occurs  in  Kafiristan  and  a more 
specific  use  of  it  is  to  be  sought.  There  is  a tribe  called 
the  Kamoz,  and  one  of  the  affluents  of  the  Indus  is  the 
Khama. 

9.  Tzotzompa  is  defined  as  “the  place  of  human 
skulls,”  suggesting  a battle-field  or  sacred  relics.3  But 
Simeon  defines  Tzompanco,  “the  place  of  the  pious.” 
Going  back  to  the  highlands  we  find  Tibetan  Tsangpo  or 
Tsanpo  means  a river,  but  the  word  skulls  fixes  this  name 
as  an  appellation.  It  was  an  Aryan  Calvary. 

Specific  appellations  throw  additional  light  on  the 
subject.  The  Tlacoc/malca  (see  p.  126),  were  a people  of 

1 Turanian  dialects  were  spoken  in  Persia,  Armenia,  and  Asia  Minor,  1500  to 
1100  B.  c.  De  Morgan,  Mission  scientifique  en  Perse , Vol.  IV,  p.  183. 

2 See  Ujfalvy,  Les  Aryens  de  L’Indou  Kouch. 

3 Compare  the  gruesome  relics  in  the  convent  of  the  Capuchins  at  Rome  and 
the  numerous  “holy  skulls"  of  slain  hermits  at  Mar  Saba,  Judea. — Cortez  pitched 
his  first  camp  at  Tzompantzinco  and  Tecohuac. 


142 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Anahuac.  The  word  tlacochtli  means  arrow,  and  Sim6on 
defines  the  whole  “keepers  of  the  arrow  house.”  This 
definition  is  not  convincing,  since  we  find  the  Nonohualca- 
Tlacochcalca  mentioned  evidently  as  a tribe,  but  more 
likely  a priesthood.  Kush  occurs  in  the  Hindu  Kush 
Mountains  and  repeatedly  elsewhere.  From  a historical 
painting  (see  note,  p.  143)  are  taken  the  names  of  the 
“stations”  in  the  Aztec  migration.  One  is  Tetepanco, 
“place  of  the  stone  wall.”  It  is  a curious  fact  that  the 
oasis  of  Men ; was  surrounded  by  a stone  wall  172  miles 
in  circuit  by  Antiochus,  son  of  Seleucus.  But  if  the 
migration  was  by  way  of  China  it  may  refer  to  the  Great 
Wall.  Alexander  the  Great  also  built  a wall  of  many  miles 
in  extent  to  prevent  the  incursions  of  the  Tartars  east  of 
the  Caspian.  Simeon  defines  Amaquemecan , “covered 
with  paper.”  So  curious  a definition  demands  an  explana- 
tion since  it  indicates  local  origin.  For  purposes  of  exor- 
cism the  Indian  went  at  night  into  the  woods,  stripped 
naked  and  covered  himself  with  paper , then  stripping  this 
off  he  fled  home  nude  (chap,  xvii,  “Nudity  Rites”).  Teo- 
ienanco , “divine”  Tenanco  (tenamitl,  wall),  “within  the 
walls,”  was  evidently  a walled  city,  Balkli  ? Tzincuetlaxco- 
huatepec  is  a “snake-mountain”  of  some  kind;  Chalca- 
Atenco  is  “ Chalca  by.  the  water  side;”  and  there  occurs 
even  such  a combination  as  Quahuitl-itech-omitl-pilca- 
yan,  “the  place  of  the  tree  on  which  bones  were  hanging.” 
Compare  the  “sacred  tree”  of  Cairo  hung  with  rags. 

A similar  nomenclature  prevails  in  central  Asia  today. 
The  map  of  Afghanistan,  Bokhara,  Khiva,  and  northern 
Persia  fairly  bristles  with  compound  words;  instance, 
Nochas-Toch-Gai ; Yarm-Chata-Bai-Himbesi;  Arki-Kur- 
bars-Ali-Bek.  Some  of  these  names  are  plainly  Mexican, 
as  the  tabulation  at  the  end  of  this  chapter  will  show. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


143 


10.  Aztlcin  itself  remains  to  be  considered.  It  is  per- 
haps the  most  elusive  name  in  the  whole  list.  It  is  already 
apparent  to  the  reader  that  the  ten  Aztlan  names  do  not 
all  apply  to  one  town  or  locality.  They  apply  to  a tract 
of  country  very  extensive  as  anyone  may  see  by  consulting 
the  map.  It  lies,  roughly  speaking,  between  latitude  30° 
and  40°  north;  and  53°  to  73°  east  longitude,  that  is,  from 
the  Caspian  Sea  to  the  Hindu  Kush  Mountains.  Aztlan 
in  the  painting  of  the  Aztec  “Migration”  before  alluded  to, 
is  pictured  as  an  island  with  a temple  and  a palm  tree.1 
It  is  a curious  fact  that  Chicomoztoc  is  named  as  the  seventh 
“station,”  although  synonymous  with  Aztlan.  This  coin- 
cidence doubtless  arose  from  the  fact  that  chicome  means 
seven.  That  Aztlan  was  not  the  starting- point  is  plain 
from  Chimalpahin  who  records  the  fact  that  in  the  year 
50  A.  D.  the  Chichimecs  “voyaged  on  the  sea  with  oars” 
and  finally  arrived  in  Teocolhuacan-Aztlan  where  they 
established  themselves.  “It  was  an  island  in  the  middle 
of  the  sea.”2  But  the  Mexicans  made  Chapultepec  a few 
miles  from  Mexico  a station,  the  city  itself  was  another, 
and  Tlatelolco,  a suburb,  was  another.  Hence  it  is  evi- 
dent that  this  picture  and  the  other  accounts  of  the  migra- 
tion have  no  value  as  actual  itineraries,  but  they  appear  to 
represent  truthfully  the  traditions  of  the  migration  at  the 
time  they  were  made.  It  is  evident  that  Aztlan  remains 
without  a definite  location.  It  may  be  a myth  place  like 
Eden,  or  it  may  be  in  America,  as  all  the  early  investiga- 
tors believed.  But  this  fact  would  in  no  wise  affect  the 
nomenclature  given  here  for  Asiatic  towns  and  places. 

1 This  painting  was  published  in  Giro  del  Mundo  by  Gemelli  Carreri.  Some 
think  it  an  invention,  but  Humboldt  appears  to  believe  it  authentic. — Researches, 
Vol.  II,  p.  57. 

2 There  are  islands  in  the  Lake  Urumiah  held  to  be  in  Zoroaster’s  native 
country. 


144 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


Let  us  look  farther  in  Asia  for  Aztlan-Tlapallan.  If 
the  Chichimecs  when  expelled  from  their  country,1  came 
down  the  Oxus  (there  is  a vague  report  of  following  a 
great  river)  to  the  Caspian  Sea,  they  followed  the  old 
course  of  the  Oxus,  no  doubt,  since  the  Oxns  now  empties 
into  the  Sea  of  Aral.  An  inland  people  would  certainly 
call  the  Caspian  “great  sea,”  “wide  as  heaven.”  They 
could  travel  on  it  a long  time  “ by  oar.”  At  the  extreme 
southeast  corner  of  the  Caspian  lies  Msfr-abad,  phonetically 
Aztlan.  This  alone  has  little  value,  and  the  same  may  be 
said  of  Az  in  the  Pamirs.  They  need  support.  But  there 
are  Balkan  Mountains  near  this  place  and  on  a modern 
map  west  of  the  Aral  is  Ust  Urt  which  supplies  the  ust 
in  Chicomoztoc.  Near,  in  the  Caspian  are  islands,  and  in 
the  swamps  no  doubt  were  herons,  aztatl,  which  are  asso- 
ciated with  Az-ti-tlan  the  old  form  of  the  word.  It  is  to 
be  noted,  too,  that  Chimalpahin  says  ( Annals  1272)  that 
the  Nonohualca-Tlacochcalca  returned  toward  the  East 
to  practice  religious  rites  to  the  sun.  Here  is  opportunity 
for  equivocation.  They  may  have  simply  faced  the 
east. 

Culture  names. — The  culture  names  at  the  head  of  the 
Oxus  suggest  a significant  comparison.  “Cutlers’  Vale,” 
“Smiths’  Vale,”  indisputably  suggest  handicrafts,  metal 
working.  The  Azteca  were  skilled  metal  workers  and 
from  az,  bronze,  Sanskrit  ay  as ; Latin  aes,  bronze  or  cop- 
per -)-  teca,  Greek,  tck-tov , we  have  worker,  artisan. 
Hence  an  Aztec  may  have  been  simply  a bronze  smith,  and 
Aztlan,  the  land  of  copper  or  of  the  bronze  working  indus- 
try, which  greatly  flourished  in  western  Asia.2  This  word 

1 Some  of  the  Nahua  tribes  were  expelled  for  rebellion.  Bancroft,  Native 
Races  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

2 A possible  objection  to  this  derivation  is  that  the  root  should  be  ez  as  in 
ez-tli , blood,  copper  color? 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


145 


teca , tequitl,  always  means  occupation  or  business  in 
Mexican. 

Continuing  on  culture  names  we  find  Pantitlan,  “the 
place  of  clothweaving.”  Tibet  adjoins  the  Pamir  plateau 
and  Tibet  has  long  been  famous  for  cloth,1  and  Bokhara 
for  rugs.  There  are  no  people  in  North  America  of  which 
the  same  may  be  said  except  the  Navajo  Indians. 

Another  name  is  Apazco  ( apaztli , a dish,  water  jar). 
The  glyph  represents  an  earthen  vessel  with  a stream  of 
water  running  into  a fissure  in  the  earth.  Nobody  would 
think  of  inventing  a name  like  this.  Subterranean  aque- 
ducts were  common  in  west  Afghanistan.  Or  it  may 
represent  a river  issuing  from  a glacier  or  entering  a fis- 
sure in  a glacier.  The  Oxus  emerges  from  glaciers.  Atl- 
itlal-ac-yan,  another  station,  means  “where  the  water  enters 
the  earth.”  It  may  refer  to  these  aqueducts. 

The  Aztlan  glyph2  is  a bird  (flamingo?)  placed  over  the 
sign  for  water  apparently  alluding  to  the  sea,  with  the  palm 
indicating  the  tropics,  but  all  this  may  be  merely  the 
fancy  of  the  artist  who  doubtless  lived  in  Mexico  and 
painted  from  tradition.  That  there  has  been  confusion 
and  transfer  in  these  place  names  seems  established  beyond 
doubt  since  Chicomoztoc  is  named  as  seventh  station 
though  synonymous  with  Aztlan.3 

References  have  been  made  to  Ozomatli  “the  divine 
monkey”  which  is  named  as  “station  24”  and  is  also  the 

1 For  an  extended  account  in  a bulky  volume  of  the  reputed  discovery  of 
Mexico  by  Buddhist  Chinese,  in  the  sixth  century  A.  D.,  see  Vining,  An  Inglorious 
Columbus , also  bibliography  of  the  subject  in  Anderson’s  America  not  Discovered 
by  Columbus. 

2 For  geographical  “glyphs,”  see  Pefiafil,  Nombres  Geograficos  de  Mexico. 

*Chimalpahin  explicitly  states  (Seventh  Relation,  year  1272)  that  the  name 
Tlapallan-Chicomoztoc  was  changed  to  Nonohualca-Tzotzompa-Quinehuayan 
whence  the  Tlacochcalca  set  out  on  their  “ migration.”  Does  this  mean  a voyage 
up  country  from  the  “ caves”  over  the  Pamirs  by  way  of  China  to  the  “ Great 
Sea  ”1  The  Aztecs  were  left  behind  by  the  other  tribes  at  Chicomoztoc. 


146 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


“day  god”  of  the  eleventh  day  of  the  month.  (See  Ozo- 
matli,  p.  53.)  This  indicates  a country  where  monkeys 
are  found,  but  strange  to  say  Chapultepec  is  No.  25.  The 
monkey  in  the  Old  World  is  found  as  far  north  as  Tibet 
and  Japan,  in  the  New  World,  as  far  north  as  eighteen 
degrees,  possibly  twenty-three  degrees.  They  have  been 
found  in  the  Himalayas  at  a height  of  8,000  to  11,000 
feet,  where  snow  and  frost  occur  during  several  months  of 
the  year.1 

The  spelling  of  geographical  names. — Though  I have 
occasionally  referred  the  reader  to  my  Mexican  in  Aryan 
Phonology  I will  give  here  for  the  convenience  of  those 
who  do  not  have  access  to  that  work,  a few  elementary 
principles.  A final  g or  k may  become  j which  in  Mexi- 
can is  cli  or  x with  an  sh- sound.  But  this  guttural  may 
remain  primitive,  be  changed  to  sh,  or  dropped  entirely. 
In  Afghan  we  find  Pushtu  or  Pukhtu,  the  name  of  the 
language.  In  the  same  way  an  initial  guttural  may 
become  j (sh).  Thus  it  is  legitimate  to  say  that  khin  may 
become  chin.  Tla-pal-lan  may  have  been  originally  Tla- 
ballc- an.  In  the  same  way  chantli,  house,  may  be  origi- 
nally, Sanskrit  kshem- a.  A medial  r or  g may  be  dropped 
and  its  place  supplied  thus : r — i,  iu  or  uj  a medial  g — 
u or  vanishes,  or  in  Avestan  becomes  s.  A 6 or  p may 
be  dropped  or  become  u.  Thus  cMr-abad  may  have  been 
in  Mexican  Tziuh- auat-1.  Ua  in  Mexican  is  a possessive 
sign,  and  nan  its  plural,  as,  teo-coZ-uan,  literally  the 
“divine  brothers.”  Can,  pan,  yan,  tlan,  co,  c,  are  simply 
place  signs. 

In  these  compound  words  each  member  of  the  com- 

1 Montaigne,  Verses  of  Virgil,  gives  a curious  account  of  gigantic  apes  en- 
countered by  Alexander  in  India ; ref.  Aelian  and  Strabo.  His  account  suggests 
Hanuman,  king  of  the  monkeys,  with  his  valiant  army. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


147 


pound  may  have  its  own  specific  meaning.  These  rules  hold 
good  for  Indo-Iranian  dialects  as  well  as  the  Mexican. 
The  spelling  of  these  names  varies  also  with  the  nation 
first  transcribing  them  into  western  literature.  Thus 
French  tchouk  is  English  chook,  djin  is  jin.  It  is  also 
common  in  Indo-Iranian  dialects  to  insert  “irrational” 
vowels  and  prosthetic  letters  as  Sanskrit  rinakti,  he  runs ; 
Avestan  irindkhtij  but  Sanskrit  adliika  becomes  Mexican 
chica.1 

It  may  seem  as  if  it  were  merely  guessing  to  derive 
Quinehuayan  from  China,  the  Chinese,  or  Kit  in  + ehua, 
to  rise,  or  Kin-ab,  a river.  It  cannot  be  all  three  as  a 
matter  of  course.  What  Kliin  or  Kin  meant  originally  is 
undetermined.  But  it  is  certain  that  it  is  an  Asiatic 
place-name.  Elma  is  Sanskrit  r ( ra  or  ar),  Latin, 
orior,  rise.  Hence  Kliin  may  originally  have  been  a 
mountain,  a river,  or  a place  of  gathering.  Khinab  + yan 
would  mean  “place  of  the  river  Khin-ab  or  Chinab,”  a 
river  of  the  Pamirs. 

A scholar,  whose  knowledge  of  languages  should  have 
guided  him  better,  writes  me  that  such  names  may  be 
taken  from  non-Aryan  languages  and  made  to  fit  ad  libi- 
tum. It  may  be  done  occasionally  but  it  cannot  be  done 
regularly.  Such  criticism  is  of  a piece  with  the  ingenious 
hypothesis  of  a certain  Scotchman  who  tried  to  convince 
the  world  that  the  Sanskrit  language  was  a cunning 
invention  of  Buddhist  priests  to  deceive  Christians.  A 
professor  in  an  English  university  criticized  me  because 
I had  not  made  non-Aryan  comparisons  and  an  Ameri- 
can linguist  found  fault  because  I had  made  such  com- 
parisons. 

iSee  Louis  H.  Gray,  Indo-Iranian  Phonology ; and  “Dialects,”  p.  99 
supra. 


148 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


A LIST  OF  NAMES  COMMON  TO  MEXICO  AND  ASIA 

Introductory  remarks. — This  comparison  is  a work  of 
almost  insuperable  difficulty.  It  requires  a profound 
knowledge  of  many  languages,  unlimited  patience,  and 
plenty  of  time.  As  I am  not  overstocked  with  any  of 
these  things  I submit  this  list  as  the  best  I could  do  under 
the  circumstances.  Things  must  be  made  clear  at  the  risk 
of  some  repetition,  and  a few  words  as  to  the  general 
character  of  Mexican  word-formation  are  necessary  to 
begin  with.  The  Mexican  word  teca  means  work,  occu- 
pation, an  office,  tribute.  Hence  a tlaxcal-/eca-tl  may  be 
one  who  keeps  bread  or  who  has  charge  of  bread.  A 
tlaltecatl  is  a superintendent  of  granaries  or  doubtless  a 
tithing  man.  Catl  has  at  times  the  same  signification,  as 
atecpancatl,  a supervisor  of  ditches.  But  in  spite  of 
much  labor,  I have  never  been  able  to  give  a root  deter- 
mination to  catl  and  otl.  From  these  remarks  it  may  be 
seen  that  an  office  or  tribal  appellation  existing  in  Asia 
may  have  continued  under  the  same  name  in  America 
though  the  thing  which  gave  the  name  no  longer  existed 
(see  pixquitl,  p.  49).  Again,  names  purely  occidental 
doubtless  sprang  up  in  America  under  these  same  forms. 
Teca  also  became  linked  with  terms  of  contempt  as  Q050I- 
teca,  “dung  people.”  Amantecatl1  (Olmos,  Gram.,  p.  83) 
was  an  artist,  hence  his  designation  was  not  lost  during 
the  disorganization  incident  to  the  migration.  The  word 
is  probably  Sanskrit,  ma,  to  measure,  fit,  be  “handy;” 
manu  quaerere  is  handiwork;  yezhuahuacatl,  may  be  the 
yezidis,  devil-worshipers,  ydjvan.  They  were  superior 
officers  in  the  court,  royal  entourage,  of  Mexico.  A com- 
prehensive study  of  Mexican  officialdom  would  surely 

iCf.  the  amanta  of  Peru  who  was  at  once  philosopher,  reciter  and  herb 
doctor.  Ized  is  New  Persian,  a god , Satan? 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


149 


prove  profitable.  But  unfortunately  these  qualifiers  in 
such  compounds  cannot  be  proved  absolutely  by  cognates 
as  can  teca  itself,  from  Sanskrit,  talcs;  Greek,  tgk-tov. 
Furthermore,  the  original  meaning  of  most  geographical 
names  is  lost,  hence  phonetics  alone  must  serve  as  a guide. 


Mexican 
Nahua,  a tribe. 

Nahua  or  Nohoa,  the  same  tribe. 
Tula  or  Tola,  a city. 

Amantecatl,  an  official. 
Cuixtecatl,  an  official. 

Calli,  a public  building. 


Chantli,  a house. 

Nal,  clear,  as  water  or  weather; 
a-nal-co,  across  the  water. 

Milli,  a field;  milpa,  in  the  coun- 
try. 

Uemac,  an  Aztec  chief. 

Uei,  large;  cf.  Etruscan  Veii. 

Me,  a Mexican  plural  ending  and 
Cuixtecatl  as  above. 

Tlal-raanaZ-co,  town  settled  by 
Nonohualca  after  leaving  Tla- 
pallan. 

Altepetl,  gen.  name  for  town. 

Temoanchan,  town  of  the  migra- 
tion; temo,  in  Mexican,  de- 
scend. 

Miahuaque,  a tribe;  miauatl,  a 
corn-stalk  bloom. 

Quinehuayan,  starting-point  of 
the  “ migration.” 


Asiatic 

Kala-Nao,  Persia. 

Shahr-Noa,  Khorassan. 

Toll,  a town,  Afghanistan;  cf. 
Etruscan  VeZwZonia. 

Amantai,  town,  Bokhara. 

Krs,  Sanskrit,  to  plough;  krsti, 
tilled  land,  people;  cf.  Krishna. 

Kal’a,  Sassanide  palace;  towns, 
Kala-nao,  Kala  Kumb,  Kala- 
varnir. 

Chan-Ojuk,  Chan-Kui,  towns  in 
northeast  of  Persia. 

Nal,  a river,  Baluchistan. 

Mil-Omar,  a town  south  of  Merv. 

Eimak,  the  four  tribes,  Afghan- 
istan. 

Ve-Rud,  Pars!  name  of  the  Oxus. 

Chech-me,  Chech-me-Aris,  towns 
in  northeast  of  Persia. 

Mei  man,  place,  northeast  of 
Cabul. 

Geok-tepe,  town,  Russ,  territory. 

Daman  i-koh,  hillside,  “ the 
slope,”  New  Persian;  Anshan, 
legendary  city  of  the  Achae- 
menian  kings. 

Miau-ab,  a town  on  Persian  Gulf. 

Kin,  (1)  Kin-abad , town  on  the 
upper  Oxus;  Khin-ab,  one 
of  the  heads  of  the  Indus; 


150 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Mexican 


Acollhuacan,  town  of  the  A -col- 
ua;  a-col-li,  the  shoulders ; col, 
also  means  tribe.  Hence  Acol- 
huacan  may  meanKul-Wakan; 
also  Teotihuacan,  “sacred  city” 
of  the  Toltecs.1 

Culiacan,  a town. 

Tlapaflan,  town  of  the  migra- 
tion (see  p.  139). 

Yacapichtlan,  “place  where  they 
adorned  noses.” 

Coxcox.  Aztec  Noah;  Tezpi,  Mi- 
choacan  Noah. 


Nontiaque,  a Nahua  tribe. 

IpaZ  Nemoani,  god. 

Chal-co,  “place  of  precious 
stones,”  18  “station”  of  Aztecs. 
NonoZraaZca,  a tribe  of  the 
Nahua. 


Aztecatl,  an  Aztec  (see  p.  144). 

Coyohuacan,  place  of  coyotes 
(Simeon). 

Poyauteca,  a tribe. 

Aztlan,  Nahua  “Eden.” 


Asiatic 

(2)  Khin  -\-ehua,  “the  rising,” 
head  of  the  Khin  River; 

(3)  The  China  or  Chin  tan 
were  the  Chinese;  cf.  Ainu, 
JNmun-guru,  mountaineers. 

Kul  in  Pamirs  and  Alps,  moun- 
tain pass;  Kara-Kul,  black 
pass;  Wakan,  a valley  at  head 
of  Oxus.  From  the  above  may 
be  teoti-Wakan,  “divine  Wa- 
kan;” Simeon,  “where  they 
conduct  the  gods”  (teotl). 

Kul,  as  above. 

Balkh,  capital  of  ancient  Bac- 
tria,  Merv  oasis. 

“Eye  paint  town,”  head  of  Oxus. 

Kush,  in  Hindu  Kush;  Hydaspes 
River  (Indus);  or  Vishtasp, 
early  Persian-Bactrian  king 
(not  good  if  divided  Visht  asp). 

Belut  tag  and  Kara-tegin,  range 
of  the  Hindu  Kush. 

Kan-i  bal,  Bala  Murghab,  towns, 
Khiva. 

Chal-Ata,  ruby  mines  and  gold, 
Upper  Oxus. 

Ferghana;  Baldjuan,  town,  Bo- 
khara; the  Galchas,  primitive 
Aryan  tribe  in  Pamirs.  Merv 
was  ancient  Garjistan. 

Aztecani,  people  mentioned  by 
Strabo,  Panjab  country. 

Gorys,  city  on  Attock  (Strabo); 
kauravya;  or  kavi  yaj. 

Cf.  Porus,  Indian  king;  cf.  Ainu, 
poiyaumbe,  brave? 

Azha,  town,  head  of  Indus. 


1 The  A-col-ua  were  so  called  because  they  wore  a scarf  over  the  shoulder. 
The  Vedic  neophyte  assumed  a scarf  over  the  left  shoulder  and  was  dubbed  twice 
born. 


CHAPTER  XVII 


Religion  and  Customs  of  the  Nahua  Compared  with  Those  of 
Asia. — General  Remarks — Religion  of  the  Nahua  Compos- 
ite— Human  Sacrifice — Fire-Worship  — The  Blood  Sacri- 
fice— Izcalli  the  Resurrection— The  Unleavened  Bread — 
Winter  Solstice  Festival — Rites  of  Mithra — The  Descent 
into  Hell  — Aztec  Future  States — Nudity  Rites  — Immac- 
ulate Conception— The  Cross — Prophecies  of  a Savior — 
Confessional  and  Absolution — Baptism — Marriage — Births 
— Burial — List  of  Deities  Common  to  Mexico  and  Asia. 

General  remarks. — The  title  of  this  chapter  should 
not  lead  the  reader  to  expect  an  extended  and  detailed 
treatment  of  a subject  which  in  itself  would  require  a vol- 
ume for  its  elaboration.  I shall  give  only  a brief  outline 
of  a few  matters  which  I consider  significant  since  my 
book  must  rest  on  its  philological  aspect  for  its  vindication 
before  the  world.  A few  thoughts  to  begin  will  be  in 
place  regarding  the  significance  or  non-significance  of  the 
items  set  down.  It  is  unscientific  and  unsafe  to  base  claims 
of  genetic  relationship  between  two  tribes  or  nations  on 
casual  resemblances  in  language,  traditions,  or  national 
customs.  Many  such  resemblances  may  have  originated 
independently,  though  I think  some  writers  carry  their 
incredulity  beyond  the  bounds  of  reason  and  consequently 
accomplish  little  or  nothing.  For  example,  traditions 
of  the  deluge  appear  to  be  universal.  They  point  to  the 
original  unity  of  the  human  race  but  are  not  conclusive. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  serpent  worship  wdiich  appears 
to  have  been  universal.  The  moon,  the  owl,  and  the  rab- 
bit appear  to  be  nearly  universal  objects  of  adoration  or 
fear  and  the  mirror  myth  is  certainly  old  Aryan.  The  fire 

151 


152  THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 

myth  is  probably  universal.  From  the  nature  of  fire  and 
its  early  use  such  must  be  the  case  hence  the  fire  and  the 
sun  cult  except  in  specific  applications  is  non-significant. 

Religion  of  the  Nahua  composite. — The  religion  of 
the  Nahua  was  no  doubt  composite.  From  the  habitat  of 
these  primitive  tribes  in  the  region  around  the  head-waters 
of  the  Oxus  and  the  Indus  they  must  have  been  acquainted 
with  the  gross  superstitions  and  idolatry  of  the  primitive 
Aryans,  the  astrolatry  and  ophiolatry  of  the  Turanians, 
the  Accadians,  and  the  Babylonians,  likewise  with  the 
purer  cult  of  the  fire-worshiping  Persians  and  the  strange 
sect  of  devil- worshiping  Persians.1  The  religion  of  the 
Nahua  appears  to  have  borrowed  something  from  all  these. 
The  Toltecs,  it  is  agreed,  had  a milder  and  purer  form  of 
religion  than  the  Aztecs.  Their  chief  deity  Quetzal- 
coatl  was  a serpent  god,  but  in  the  form  of  a man  he 
taught  the  useful  arts.  Besides,  according  to  Canon 
Rawlinson,  the  serpent  was  originally  beneficent,  only  in 
later  times  did  he  become  the  enemy  of  mankind.2 

Human  sacrifice. — According  to  Clavijero  the  Aztecs 
instituted  the  abominable  practice  of  human  sacrifice  only 
about  two  hundred  years  before  their  advent  into  Anahuac. 
But  this  is  to  be  doubted,  considering  the  origin  of  that 
people,  and  they  undoubtedly  brought  it  with  them  from 
Asia.  Human  sacrifice,  says  Dubois,  existed  in  India 
within  the  lifetime  of  old  men  with  whom  he  had  con- 
versed, and  that  is  but  little  over  one  hundred  years  ago. 
In  1733  the  Frenchman  Renaudot  saw  girls  devoted  to  the 
Buds  or  evil  spirits  and  Forlong  remarks  that  he  fears  the 
same  thing  may  be  done  yet  when  the  vigilance  of  the 

1 1 zed  is  or  Yezidis , still  numerous.  Dr.  Paul  Carus,  History  of  the  Devil , 
p.  63.  Cf.  Japanese,  Vezo-jin,  dwarfs. 


2 See  note  2,  p.  123. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


153 


government  relaxes.1  I will  give  two  specific  instances  of 
Aztec  sacrifice.  In  preparation  for  the  festival  of  Tez- 
catlipoca,  the  victim  who  personated  the  god  was  a hand- 
some young  man.  He  was  carefully  attended  and  greatly 
honored.  Twenty  days  before  his  immolation,  four  maid- 
ens were  assigned  to  him  with  whom  he  had  carnal  con- 
versation. On  the  fatal  day  he  marched  with  honors  to 
the  sacrificial  block.  Children  were  sacrificed  to  Tlaloc 
the  god  of  rain.  They  were  immured  alive  in  a cave  or 
thrown  into  a whirlpool  in  the  lake.2 

Fire-worship.  — From  their  original  seat  in  the  Pamirs, 
the  ancestors  of  the  Nahua  must  have  come  in  contact  with 
the  fire-worshiping  magians  who  carefully  guarded  their 
sacred  fires.  Where  was  the  field  of  Zoroaster’s  chief 
labors?  There  is  some  doubt  on  this  point.  Professor 
Jackson  is  positive,  with  very  convincing  reasons,  that 
Zoroaster  was  born  in  northwest  Persia  near  Lake 
Urumiah.3  But  a host  of  authorities  agree  that  the  chief 
field  of  Zoroaster’s  labors  and  the  place  of  his  death  must 
have  been  Balkh  the  capital  of  ancient  Bactria.  The  Par- 
sis  of  Yezd  at  the  present  day,  says  Jackson,  know  nothing 
of  the  Urumiah  legend.  I think  it  safe  to  conclude  that 
the  Aztecs  got  the  fire  element  in  their  religion  from  the 
fire- worshipers  of  Balkh  (Tlapallan?).  The  Aztecs  kept 
these  fires  burning  day  and  night  in  the  towers  of  the 
great  teocallis ,*  and  their  extinction  was  considered  a 
calamity.  Once  in  52  years  all  fires  were  extinguished 
and  relighted  with  solemn  ceremonies  including  human 
sacrifice  (see  p.  101).  According  to  Ujfalvy  evidences  of 

1 J.  G.  R.  Forlong,  Short  Studies  in  the  Science  of  Religion , pp.  102-12. 

2 Sahagun,  Cosas  de  la  Nueva  Espafta,  Bk.  I,  cap.  v. 

3 A.  V.  W.  Jackson,  Persia  Past  and  Present ; and  same  author,  Zoroaster. 

♦ The  great  temple  of  Mexico  was  inclosed  by  a stone  wall.  The  enceinte 
contained  about  70  chapels,  cu ; 5,000  priests  were  attached  to  this  service. 


154 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


the  old  fire-worship  exist  today,  even  among  Mahommedans, 
all  over  the  ancient  Bactria  and  the  Pamir  country.  For 
example  a Tajik  will  not  blow  out  a candle  with  his  breath 
but  uses  his  hand  or  a fan.  He  will  not  spit  in  the  fire. 
They  also  have  a “fire  cure.”1 

The  blood  sacrifice. — The  self-tortures  and  penances 
of  the  Aztecs  continually  remind  us  of  similar  horrors 
practiced  in  India  from  time  immemorial.  They  gashed 
themselves  with  knives  on  the  cheeks,  ears,  and  thighs 
and  smeared  the  blood  over  their  countenances.  They 
pierced  the  tongue  with  a maguey  spine  and  forcibly 
drew  twigs  or  grass  stems  through  the  wound.  They  went 
naked  to  the  woods  and  placed  these  bloody  agents  of  tor- 
ture on  a sort  of  cage  made  of  canes.  The  women  kept 
up  these  hideous  rites  for  five  days,  the  men  for  eight 
days  before  an  approaching  festival  of  a god.  Devotees 
bought  pheasants  and  beheaded  them  in  the  temple  pre- 
cincts, then  dipping  white  paper  in  the  blood  which  was 
caught  in  a vessel  they  went  round  the  sacred  inclosure 
smearing  the  mouths  of  the  various  gods  with  blood.2 

Izcalli,  or  itzcalli,  the  resurrection.  — The  feast  of 
Izcalli  was  held  at  the  end  of  the  year  of  360  days  after 
which  came  five  days  called  nemontemi,  superfluous  days, 
literally,  “they  fill  up.”  This  end  of  the  year  feast  cor- 
responded in  a general  way  to  the  Christian  Easter.3  It 
was  a time  of  general  rejoicing.  Meats  were  roasted  and 
to  each  person  was  given  a nauhquiltamalli  or  cake.  The 
food  was  eaten  hot  and  wine  drunk.  In  the  fire  sacrifice 
of  the  Zoroastrians  little  cakes  with  small  pieces  of  holy 

1 Ujfalvy,  Les  Aryens  de  VIndou  Kouch,  pp.  95  S. 

2 Saba  gun,  Cos  as  de  la  Nueva  Espaila,  appendix  to  Bk.  II. 

3The  idea  of  the  resurrection  was  Mazdian  rather  than  Jewish,  Samuel 
Johnson,  Oriental  Religions , pp.  138  if. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


155 


meat  were  eaten  and  haoma  (soma)  was  drunk.1  Human 
sacrifice  occurred  in  bissextile  years.2  In  these  last  years 
Payncil  was  introduced.  He  was  an  emergency  lieutenant, 
vicar,  of  Uitzilopoclitli  and  originally  was  not  a god  but 
a man.  Compare  the  man-god  Jesus. 

The  unleavened  bread. — This  festival  would  appear  to 
suggest  the  Jewish  feast  of  unleavened  bread,  but  it  was 
probably  of  wider  signification.  The  atamalli,  “water 
cakes,”  were  made  of  meal  and  water,  not  even  salt  was 
added.  This  feast  occurred  only  once  in  eight  years. 

The  winter  solstice  festival  to  Uitzilopochtli  was  a time 
of  blood-letting  penance,  fasting,  processions  as  prelimi- 
naries. An  image  of  the  god  was  made  from  dough  mixed 
with  the  blood  of  sacrificed  children  who  were  bought 
or  offered  voluntarily.  In  the  bread  were  put  seeds  of 
the  nauhquilitl  (savory,  Satureia  hortensis)  and  the 
whole  was  baked.  A priest  shot  an  arrow  into  the  heart 
of  the  god.  The  heart  was  then  eaten  by  the  king  and 
a piece  of  the  image  was  given  to  every  man,  but  no  woman 
was  allowed  to  partake.  Compare  with  this  the  fact  that 
no  woman  was  allowed  to  recite  the  Vedas  or  perform 
sacrifice  without  the  presence  of  her  husband.  A similar 
feast  takes  place  today  in  Persia  (see  Izcalli).3  Compare 
this  with  the  Christian  sacrament  in  which  the  body  of 
Christ  is  supposed  to  be  eaten.  The  eating  was  called 
teoqualo,  “the  god  is  eaten.”  Concerning  the  devil- 
worshipers,4  Carus  relates  the  story  of  a German  traveler 
who  asked  one  of  these  people  why  they  worshiped  the 
devil.  The  naive  answer  was,  “why  should  not  the  devil 

1 Dr.  Paul  Carus,  History  of  the  Devil , p.  57. 

2 For  a description  of  the  festival  see  Sahagun  or  Bancroft,  Native  Races  of 
the  Pacific  Coast,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  288-324. 

3 Dr.  Paul  Carus,  History  of  the  Devil,  p.  69. 

*Ibid„  p.  64. 


156 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


help  us  since  we  are  the  only  people  who  ever  helped  him  ?” 
Tezcatlipoca,  the  Mexican  devil,  in  his  contest  with  Quet- 
zalcoatl  and  the  Toltecs  certainly  acted  up  to  his  reputation. 

Rites  of  Mithra. — The  Mithra  cult  originated  in  Persia 
at  a very  ancient  date.  W.  S.  Brackett  compares  the  rites 
of  Mithra  with  those  of  the  god  Uitzilopochtli.  The 
neophyte  in  both  cases  after  undergoing  an  ordeal  of  hor- 
rors, some  of  which  occur  in  a caueor  subterranean  chamber, 
is  hailed  as  “born  again.”  Compare  this  with  the  Vedic 
“twice  born”  and  the  Christian  “born  again.”  The  author 
gives  two  illustrations  side  by  side  of  Mithra  and  Uitzil- 
opochtli. The  figures  are  strikingly  similar,  both  sur- 
mounting a globe  and  both  accompanied  by  the  bird  and 
serpent  emblem.'  Curiously  enough  Mr.  Brackett  arrives 
at  the  conclusion  that  Persia  was  settled  from  Mexico. 

Descent  into  hell. — The  rites  of  Mithra  and  Uitzil- 
opochtli which  were  underground,  the  sacrifice  of  children 
to  Tlaloc  in  a cave,  the  holy  caves  of  Zoroaster,  the  terrible 
self-immolation  of  Buddhist  devotees  in  dark,  sealed 
caverns,  the  descent  of  Christ  into  hell,  all  point  to  a 
common  origin  and  cause,  the  desire  to  make  the  penance 
as  dreadful  as  possible  in  darkness  and  secrecy.  “Stations” 
3 and  4 in  the  Aztec  migration  were  “the  places  of  humilia- 
tion and  grottoes.'1'’ 

The  Aztec  future  states  were  three:  (1)  Ilhuicac,  region 
of  brightness  according  to  the  Sanskrit,  or  rocanh ; Latin, 
lux;  (2)  Tlaloc’s,  terrestrial  paradise,  a beautiful  land  of 
streams,  fruits,  and  flowers  where  squashes  and  corn  grew 
without  the  trouble  of  cultivation;  (3)  Mictlampan  or 
hell,  as  some  writers  define  it,  but,  in  the  Nauatl  language, 
simply  “the  land  of  the  dead.” 

Compare  these  three  states  with  heaven,  purgatory, 

1 W.  S.  Brackett,  Lost  Histories  of  America , p.  138. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


157 


and  hell.  The  belief  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul  was 
Aryan  and  Zoroastrian,  also  the  belief  in  angels. 

Nudity  rites. — Barth  gives  the  following  as  a very 
curious  example  of  the  belief  that  nudity  was  efficacious  in 
some  observances.  “If  a man  takes  seven  cotton  threads, 
goes  to  a place  where  an  owl  (Tlacatecolotl)  is  hooting, 
strips  naked,  ties  a knot  at  each  hoot,  and  fastens  the 
thread  round  the  right  arm  of  a fever  patient  the  fever 
goes  away.”1  The  Aztecs  had  rites  which  necessitated 
stripping  nude  in  the  woods  and  fleeing  to  the  house 
naked.  Chimalpahin  says  the  Chichimecs  landed  naked. 
A Latin  author,  Virgil,  I think,  exhorts  the  husbandman 
to  plow  naked  and  sow  naked.  This  has  been  construed 
to  mean  unarmed  but  perhaps  in  some  cases  it  should  be 
taken  literally .2  Strabo  records  that  the  Gymnetae 
(naked)  of  India  lived  in  the  open  air  practicing  fortitude 
for  the  space  of  thirty-seven  years,  and  were  singularly 
esteemed.  When  Onesicritus  desired  to  converse  with 
Calanus,  an  Indian  Sophist,  the  latter  asked  the  Greek  to 
strip  naked  and  lie  down  on  the  rocks  beside  him  before 
the  discourse  began.3 

The  Immaculate  Conception. — There  was  a Zoroastrian 
prophecy  that  a virgin  would  give  birth  to  a savior.4 
Uitzilopochtli  was  begotten  by  immaculate  conception  but 
unfortunately  for  the  parallel  his  mother  was  a widow  and 
the  mother  of  grown  children.5  These  the  monster 
promptly  slaughtered  immediately  after  his  birth.  A late 
writer  takes  the  ground  that  Jesus  was  an  Aryan.6 

1 A.  Barth,  Religions  of  India,  p.  279. 

2 Fort  William,  Ont.,  April  9, 1908.  “Doukhobors  again  commenced  parading 
naked  on  the  streets  here  this  morning.” — Chicago  Tribune,  April  10. 

3 Strabo  (Bohn’s  Library),  Vol.  Ill,  p.  112. 

* Countess  Martinengo  Cesaresco,  Contemporary  Review,  October,  1907. 

5 Clavijero,  Storia  di  Messico. 

6 Professor  Paul  Haupt,  Congress  of  Orientalists,  1908,  cf.  letter  to  the  Nation, 
September  10,  1908. 


158 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


The  cross  was  a pre-Christian  symbol.  When  Quet- 
zalcoatl  landed  at  P&nuco  he  wore  a handsome  robe 
adorned  with  crosses.  The  cross  is  frequently  found  in 
the  ruins  of  Yucatan  and  in  the  oldest  Cretan  excavations. 

Prophecies. — The  Aztecs  believed  that  Quetzalcoatl 
would  eventually  return  and  redeem  them  from  a con- 
dition which  they  considered  “fallen.”  A bull  predicted 
the  coming  of  Zoroaster  8,000  years  before  his  birth  and 
an  ox  spoke  his  name  300  years  before.  All  these  parallel 
the  prophecies  concerning  the  coming  of  Christ. 

Miracles  accompanied  the  birth  of  Zoroaster.  He 
even  had  a Herod  in  the  person  of  a Turanian  king.  He 
disputed  with  the  wise  men.1  He  was  tempted  by  the 
devil.2  He  recognized  three  divine  principles,  Glory, 
Spirit,  Substance,  a close  parallel  to  the  Christian  trinity. 

The  confessional  and  absolution  were  also  distinctively 
Aztec,  but  they  differed  from  the  Christian  confessional  in 
this  important  particular:  Confession  was  made  but  once 
in  a lifetime.  If  the  penitent  transgressed  again  he  could 
not  be  absolved  a second  time,  consequently  it  was  usually 
deferred  till  late  in  life.  The  ceremonial  was  solemn  and 
impressive,  and  if  Sahagun  describes  it  literally  it  repre- 
sented a very  high  order  of  piety  and  a profound  apprecia- 
tion of  the  importance  of  the  act.3 

Baptism. — Sahagun  describes  in  full  the  ceremonies 
attendant  on  the  baptism  of  a child.  They  chose  the 
most  prosperous  “house”  in  the  sign  for  the  ceremony. 
It  was  a day  of  feasting  for  all  the  friends  of  the  family 
“y  tambien  6 todos  los  ninos  de  todo  el  barrio,”  “and  like- 
wise to  all  the  children  of  the  quarter.”  The  boy  faced 

1 A.  V.  Williams  Jackson,  Zoroaster , pp.  61  ff.  For  prophecy  of  Messiah  same 
author,  Biblical  World , August,  1896. 

2 Conway,  Solomon  and  Solomonic  Literature , p.  186. 

3 Sahagun,  Cosas  de  la  Nueva  Espafia,  Bk.  V,  cap.  yii. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA  159 

the  ivest  and  drank  of  the  water.  The  fingers  of  the 
officiating  personage  (midwife)  were  dipped  in  the  water 
and  touched  to  the  child’s  mouth.1  The  ceremonial  dif- 
fered slightly  for  girls. 

Births. — At  the  birth  of  an  Aztec  child  the  astrologer 
or  naualli  was  always  consulted  regarding  his  star  and 
the  auguries.  The  Parsis  call  the  astrologer  on  the  sev- 
enth day  after  birth.2  In  fact  the  Aztecs  consulted  the 
naualli  on  the  most  trivial  occasions  such  as  the  hooting 
of  an  owl  near  the  house.  At  the  birth  of  Louis  XIV, 
the  astrologer  Morin  de  Villefranclie  was  concealed  behind 
the  curtains  to  cast  the  nativity  of  the  future  monarch. 
An  Aztec  book  of  magic  was  called  tonalamatl  from 
tonalli  and  amatl,  paper.  Tonalli  is  cognate  beyond 
question  with  Hindustani,  tonha,,  a magician.  The  Aztecs 
called  a magician  naualli , which  may  be  derived  from 
the  Sanskrit,  nakta,  night;  Latin,  nox;  and  vara , the 
time  or  turn  of  a planet.  Or  it  may  be  connected  with 
naui,  four  as  a “sacred”  number  in  magic. 

Marriage  among  the  Aztecs  was  a matter  of  great 
importance.  At  the  marriage  of  a son  the  old  women 
“go-betweens”  were  employed  just  as  in  the  Orient  today. 
They  sought  out  the  parents  of  the  girl  who  was  the 
preference  of  the  parents  of  the  young  man  and  obtained 
their  consent.  Then  the  telpuchtlato , a sort  of  pedagogue 
who  had  charge  of  boys,  brought  home  the  son  to  his 
parents  and  in  a speech  formally  resigned  his  charge  and 
delivered  the  boy  into  the  care  of  his  parents,  laying  at 
his  feet  an  axe  as  a sign  that  the  tie  between  himself  and 
the  boy  was  severed.  A feast  followed  for  the  telpuchtlato 
and  all  the  boys  under  his  charge.  The  groom’s  friends 


l Sahagun,  Cosas  de  la  Nueva  Espana , Bk.  II,  cap.  xix. 
2 Encyclopaedia  Britannica , article  “Parsis.” 


160 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


went  by  night  to  bring  home  the  bride.  There  was  a 
torch-light  procession  in  which  all  the  friends  joined. 
Among  the  Parsis  today  the  procession  is  formed  at  sunset. 
The  bride  and  groom  were  seated  by  a fire  (the  Parsis  light 
a lamp)  in  the  center  of  the  hall  in  the  groom’s  home.  The 
mother  of  the  groom  laid  at  the  feet  of  the  bride  richly 
embroidered  underclothing  and  the  mother  of  the  bride 
put  on  the  shoulders  of  the  groom  a handsome  uipilli, 
tunic,  and  laid  a richly  embroidered  maxtlatl , belt,  at  his 
feet.  Then  the  titici,  “wise  old  women”  in  this  case,  tied 
a corner  of  the  groom’s  tunic  to  a fold  of  the  bride’s,  and 
the  ceremony  was  complete.  The  Parsis  tie  the  right 
hands  of  the  bride  and  groom  with  a silken  cord,  winding 
it  round  their  bodies.  Feasting  and  dancing  followed.1 
The  entire  ceremonies  occupied  several  days.  The  points 
of  resemblance  between  this  Aztec  ceremony  and  the 
marriage  ceremony  in  India  to  be  specially  noted  are 
these:  in  India  the  liearth-fire  plays  the  same  important 
part  and  the  bride  and  groom  sometimes  are  tied  together 
with  straw  of  the  “sacred  grass.” 

Burial  customs.  — Mr.  Tylor  says  the  burial  customs 
of  the  Aztecs  may  be  adequately  illustrated  by  the  cere- 
monial of  burying  a king.  The  corpse  lay  in  state  in- 
vested in  the  mantle  of  his  patron  god.  The  deceased  was 
furnished  with  a jug  of  water,  some  pieces  of  cut  paper 
(see  Amaquemecan) , and  garments  to  protect  him  from 
the  elements  on  his  journey,  and  a dog  was  sacrificed  to 
accompany  him.  In  earlier  times  the  body  was  buried 
sitting  upright2  surrounded  by  slain  attendants,  later  it 
was  burned  on  a funeral  pile  with  accompanying  sacrifices 


i Sahagun,  Cosan  de  Nuevo,  Espana , Bk.  II,  cap.  xix. 

iGalla , daughter  of  Theodosius  the  Great,  thus-sat  in  state  for  more  than 
a thousand  years  in  her  mausoleum  at  Ravenna. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA  101 

of  attendants.  The  Ptolemaic  Greeks  also  equipped  the 
dead  for  their  long  journey — in  one  case  a coin,  a staff, 
and  a book.  Ibn-Foslan,  an  Arabic  traveler  in  Russia  in 
the  ninth  century  A.  d.,  describes  a burial  which  is  almost 
a duplicate  of  the  Aztec,  but  in  the  case  of  the  Slavs  a man 
and  a woman  volunteered  to  accompany  the  dead,  and  a 
horse  was  sacrificed.1 

Deities  common  to  Mexico  and  Asia. — It  has  been  said 
that  the  Nahua  had  no  general  name  for  god.  This  is  a 
mistake.  Their  generic  name  for  deity  is  teutl  or  teotl,  a 
god,  any  god.  It  is  cognate  with  Sanskrit,  devatd ; Hindi, 
deotA;  Latin,  dens.  As  may  be  seen  by  these  compari- 
sons the  Christian  religion  is  largely  Aryan  in  origin 
rather  than  Judaic  which  may  be  accounted  for  by  the 
protracted  captivity  of  the  Jews  at  the  court  of  Persia. 
But  future  investigations  may  establish  the  fact  that  the 
Aryans  borrowed  their  religion  from  Turanian  sources. 


NAMES  OF  A FEW  OF  THE  DEITIES  FOUND  IN 
AMERICAN  LANGUAGES 

This  list  is  not  given  as  absolute,  or  complete. 

Uitzilopochtli,  Sanskrit,  bhaj,  bhaga;  Persian,  Baga;  Russ., 
Bog;  Algonquin  Mana-frozho. 

Quetzalcoatl,  Babylonian  Hoa  or  Koa?  the  serpent-god,  also 
Turanian  serpent-god. 

Tetsauitl,  a prodigy,  Sanskrit,  dasa,  evil  demon  + vid,  to  see. 

Monitor  Manitou  = Ma+an-it,  Anna,  Ana,  Anu,  Babylonian, 
Turanian,  Aryan. 

Nanepaushadt,  apparently  Na,  Anna  or  Anu,  and  Baga. 
Nepau  is  possibly  Nebo  and  Anna,  Babylonian;  Egyptian 
Anu-p(  ?),  the  hawk,  which  involves  a confusion  of  names  with 
the  order  reversed;  compare,  Egyptian  Pasht,  the  cat-god,  Nebe- 
hat,  and  Hat-hor. 


'Alfred  Rambaud,  History  of  Russia,  Vol.  I,  p.  40,  Eng.  translation. 


162 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Tlaloc,  the  Mexican  Indra  (see  chap.  iii).  There  were  in  all 
eight  Tlalocs;  compare  the  eight  loka-pdld,  “world  protectors” 
of  the  Vedas. 

Siva,  Sanskrit,  “the  gentle  one;”  ciuatl,  a woman,  Mexican. 

Sarva,  Sanskrit,  another  name  for  Siva,  perhaps  Xelhua,  who 
built  the  pyramid  of  Cholula. 

Tecuiztecatl,  god  of  the  sun,  Dag -on  ( ?).  Said  to  come  from 
dag,  a fish,  but  is  a crab  in  Mexican,  but  better  Sanskrit, 
daghs , Mexican,  tekis,  + #eca,“fire  care-taker,”  i.  e.,  the  sun. 

Tlacatecolotl,  “the  man  owl”  (see  chap.  vi). 

Uitznauatl,  god  of  condemned  slaves,  Vishnu(?)  or  Sanskrit, 
vish,  plebs-fnauatl. 

Ozomatli,  “the  divine  monkey,”  Sanskrit,  vrsli&-kapi  (see 
chap.  vi). 

Chon,  Peruvian,  Vul-ccm,  Baal-can  (Falb). 

Conn,  an  Irish  god  or  giant  who  overwhelmed  his  enemies 
with  snow;  Algonquin,  kon,  snow;  also  Turanian  of  central  Asia.1 

Nanauatzin,  Mexican  moon-god,  Ana.  (See  Nanepaushadt 
above,  also  Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology,  n.  12.) 

Tezcatlipoca,  Mexican  devil;  compare  universal  Aryan  bad- 
luck  legends  connected  with  the  looking-glass  (see  chap.  vi). 

Tonantzin  or  Teteo  innan,  Mexican,  “mother  of  the  gods,” 
Vedic,  Aditi. 

Ipal  nemoani,  Babylonian  Bel?  Nebo-Ana?2 

Remarks. — At  the  festival  of  the  Aztec  god  Xipe  the  victims  were  flayed. 
Clavijero  relates  a horrible  act,  the  flaying  of  a maiden  who  personated  “ the 
Mother  of  the  Gods.”  Cybele  was  the  mother  of  Zeus  and  was  closely  associated 
with  Marsyas  who  was  flayed.  Mani,  founder  of  the  Manichaeans,  was  flayed 
Hence  flaying  may  have  been  a religious  rite  rather  than  an  act  of  cruelty.  Xip-e 
may  be  Cyb-ele. — Compare  Mana-bozho  with  Mand  rabbA,  “ the  Great  Spirit  of 
Glory”  of  the  Mandaeans. 

1 See  the  account  of  Sergeant  Bagg’s  combat  with  the  “ Fairy  Man  ” which 
was  suddenly  terminated  by  a blinding  snow-storm.  Lav-engro , chap,  xii,  George 
Borrow.  Also  see  Marco  Polo’s  and  Fa-Hien’s  account  of  the  dangers  of  the 
desert  of  Gobi.  The  latter  speaks  of  dragons  that  spit  sand-storms  and  snow- 
storms, time,  402  a.  d.  Dawn  of  Modern  Geography , Vol.  I,  pp.  479,  480. 

2 The  number  of  deities  in  the  Mexican  pantheon  was  thirteen  major,  two 
hundred  minor.  Prescott,  Conquest  of  Mexico , Vol.  I,  p.  58. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


Aztec  Civilization  not  Indigenous — Home  Land — Learning  and 
Arts — Domestic  Life — Education — Ethics  of  Their  Re- 
ligion— Priests — Economics  and  Government — Cannibal- 
ism— Nahua  Disposition  and  Courage— Influence  of  Super- 
stition on  the  Conquest. 

One  tiling  is  certain.  We  must  dismiss  all  notion  that 
the  Nahua  developed  an  indigenous  civilization  on  Amer- 
ican soil  in  spite  of  assertions  to  that  effect  by  prominent 
writers.  They  distinctly  inherited  the  old  Aryan  culture 
of  western  Asia.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  that,  may  be 
predicated,  with  modifications  perhaps,  of  the  people  of 
Anahuac.  These  people  were  not  barbarians.  They  may 
be  classed  with  the  Vedic  Hindus  and  the  Greeks  of  the 
Homeric  age.  The  Aztecs  could  never  have  been  on  as 
low  a plane  as  the  northern  savages,  such  as  the  Eskimo, 
or  the  Athapascans.  To  give  the  beginnings  of  their 
culture  is  then  to  restate  the  beginnings  of  the  most  primi- 
tive Aryanism  which  is  perhaps  today  best  illustrated  in 
Kafiristan  and  the  Hindu  Kush  region. 

Home  land. — According  to  tradition  the  original  seat 
of  the  Nahua  was  a land  of  cheer,  and  they  dearly  loved 
that  land  as  their  traditions  testify.  It  was  a beauti- 
ful land  of  forest,  stream,  and  savanna,  a glorious  land; 
but  this  may  be  the  myth  of  an  Eden.  They  or  their 
neighbors  were  builders  of  cities  and  of  imposing  edi- 
fices. They  had  wealth,  considerable  wealth,  as  xiqui- 
pilli  and  cuiltonoa,  to  prosper,  testify.  The  xiquipilli,  a 
purse,  contained  8,000  pieces.  Who  but  a commercial 
people  would  have  occasion  to  handle  such  a sum  of 

163 


164 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


money?  Were  the  standard  but  five  cents  it  would  equal 
$400.  They  had  two  names  for  merchant ,*  and  a verb 
meaning  peddle,  all  indicating  an  established  commerce. 

The  word  macehualli,  servant,  vassal;  Hindustani, 
wallah,  may  indicate  that  the  Nahua  in  Asia  held  slaves 
or  lived  under  a feudal  system,  according  to  the  universal 
custom  of  the  age.  But  the  local  conditions  in  Mexico 
may  well  have  brought  cuiltonoa  and  macehualli  into  use. 

Learning  and  arts. — The  Aztecs  understood  to  a cer- 
tain degree  the  science  of  astronomy.  Their  ancestors 
revised  the  calendar  years  before  it  was  revised  by  Julius 
Caesar  (see  p.  139).  At  the  time  of  the  conquest  it  was 
practically  correct,  while  the  reckoning  of  the  nations  of 
Europe  was  wrong  by  about  ten  days. 

The  Aztec  gold-  and  silversmiths  produced  beautiful 
work  which  was  highly  prized  and  eagerly  sought  by  the 
Spaniards  for  its  artistic  value.  The  Aztec  feather  pic- 
tures were  unique  in  kind  and  admirable  in  execution. 

The  Nauatlaca  had  written  records  in  picture  writings 
which  were  called  tlacuilolli.  That  these  writings  were 
capable  of  sustained  narrative  cannot  be  doubted.  But 
the  Spaniards  destroyed  most  of  these  writings  and  the 
knowledge  of  their  accurate  interpretation  has  been  lost.2 

Domestic  life. — In  favor  of  their  home  life  much  may 
be  said  to  their  credit.  The  Nauatl  language  abounds  in 
terms  of  endearment  such  as  “my  dear  little  son,”  “my 
jewel,”  “my  esteemed  wife,”  or  “honorable  wife.” 
Friends  were  always  addressed  by  the  term  tzin,  honor- 
able, or  icniuhtze,  friend.  It  may  be  said  in  objection 
that  oriental  courtesy  is  a mockery,  and  the  free  use  of 

1 The  word  ozto-mecatl,  merchant,  is  plainly  connected  with  oztotl  cave.  But 
in  Russian  ust  means  mouth,  opening,  thus  the  word  must  have  meant  not  only 
cave  but  the  open  front  of  a shop  in  the  bazars.  (See  Chicomoztoc.) 

2 On  one  occasion  a bonfire  of  MSS,  lasting  several  days,  blazed  in  the  streets 
of  Tezcuco. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA  165 

“honorifics”  a mark  of  servility.  But  the  same  criticism 
has  been  made  regarding  French  politeness  by  people 
who  have  much  less  real  politeness  than  the  French. 
Etiquette  may  be  abused  by  sycophants  and  knaves,  but 
etiquette  was  not  invented  for  sycophants  and  knaves. 

It  would  be  wholly  foreign  to  my  work  to  go  into 
lengthy  details  of  the  domestic  life  of  the  Nahua — dress, 
customs,  cuisine,  music,  education,  art,  books,  etiquette. 
I have  confined  myself  rigidly  to  one  purpose  — to  show 
the  connection  of  these  people  with  the  people  of  Asia. 

Education. — The  greatest  care  was  bestowed  upon 
the  education  of  children  as  evidenced  in  the  “Address 
of  a Father  to  his  Son,”  and  the  “Address  of  a Mother 
to  her  Daughter.”  In  the  latter  the  consequences  of 
infidelity  to  the  marriage  vow  are  depicted  with  great 
force  and  striking  realism.  The  telpuchtlato  had  charge 
of  boys  (see  p.  159). 

Festivals. — They  had  feast  days  and  holidays  on 
which  everybody  turned  to  play  and  rejoicing.  Flowers 
they  greatly  loved  and  the  feast  of  xocouetzi'  was  conse- 
crated to  the  apple  tree,  xocotl,  which  Simeon  thinks 
was  the  malum  or  apple  of  the  Romans.  The  religious 
festivals,  it  is  true,  were  sometimes  marred  among  the  Aztecs 
by  revolting  human  sacrifices,  but  some  of  the  other 
tribes  looked  on  this  custom  with  horror. 

Ethics. — This  last  remark  brings  us  to  consider  re- 
ligion (already  treated  at  some  length),  than  which  no 
other  human  institution  is  more  easily  misunderstood  by 
foreigners.  Much  has  been  written  about  the  sanguinary 
and  monstrous  god  of  war,  Uitzilopochtli.  But  as  I have 
shown  (chap,  xiv),  his  name  means  simply  “the  Giver,” 
though  the  irony  of  fate  converted  him  into  a devil. 


1 The  month  Xocouetzi  extended  circa  August  17  to  September  5. — Simeon. 


166 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


The  god  Tlaloc,  “Lord  of  the  Terrestrial  Paradise,”  was 
a New-World  Indra  (see  Indra,  chap.  iii).  He  was  the 
beneficent  giver  of  rain  and  the  source  of  agricultural 
prosperity.  He  contended  with  the  adverse  spirits  of 
heaven.  The  Aztec  Venus  was  perhaps  identical  with 
the  Greek  and  Roman  Venus,  simply  a goddess  of  pleas- 
ure. The  world  practices  her  cult  today,  dispensing  with 
the  formality  of  announcing  a cult  and  appointing  a 
patroness. 

Priests. — The  Aztec  priesthood  formed  a distinct  and 
powerful  caste.  They  apparently  possessed  unbounded 
influence  over  the  people.  Doubtless  they  differed  in  no 
respect  from  the  priesthood  in  all  ages  and  all  countries — 
some  were  sincere,  good  men,  others  took  advantage  of 
their  sacred  calling  for  their  own  advancement  and  profit. 

Economics  and  government. — I shall  not  go  into  the 
question  of  Aztec  internal  polity,  form  of  government,  and 
land  tenures.  That  has  been  done  well  already  by  others.1 
But  this  question  inevitably  arises:  Why  did  not  the 
Aztecs,  and  other  Indians  as  well,  rise  to  the  condition 
of  a stable  civilization  and  a well-ordered  state?  This 
question  has  nothing  to  do  with  philology  and  I shall 
give  my  opinion  in  a line.  They  lacked  beasts  of  burden 
and  a reliable , abundant  food  supply.  The  Nahua  had 
corn  (maize),  squashes,  perhaps  sweet  potatoes,  native 
fruits,  including  the  banana,  seven  kinds  of  tomatoes  and 
chocolate.  But  they  lacked  three  things  essential  to  a high 
civilization.  Wheat  (or  rice),  meat,  and  a root  crop 
capable  of  preservation. 

Cannibalism. — With  respect  to  human  sacrifice  and 
the  attendant  cannibalism,  Aztec  character  has  been 

i Notably,  Lewis  H.  Morgan,  Ancient  Society , and  A.  F.  Bandelier,  Peabody 
Museum  Report , 1876-79. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


167 


painted  in  the  blackest  colors.  Some  of  this  color  or  bias 
at  times  sprang  only  too  evidently  from  bigotry,  again 
from  ignorance  of  the  subject  in  its  broader  aspects.  I 
make  no  defense  of  this  monstrous  rite  as  it  was  practiced 
by  that  unfortunate  nation.  Their  excesses  were  revolting. 
But  to  my  mind  there  appears  to  be  some  slight  extenuation. 
All  the  human  race  once  believed  in  human  sacrifice  and 
practiced  it.  It  existed  secretly  in  India  within  the 
memory  of  very  old  men  lately  living,  indeed  it  may  exist 
yet.  The  curious  “horse  sacrifice”  still  existed  in  Russia  as 
late  as  the  sixteenth  century.1  It  may  have  been  a Yedic 
survival  but  there  was  also  a “horse  sacrifice,”  aswamedha, 
existing  in  India.  Animal  sacrifice  still  exists  in  Kafiristan, 
in  the  Hindu  Kush  region.  If  the  whole  world  once 
believed  a thing,  why  should  the  last  man  to  believe  it  be 
crucified  ? 2 

It  is  said  that  the  Aztecs  introduced  human  sacrifice 
only  about  two  hundred  years  before  the  conquest,  according 
to  Clavijero.3  But  this,  as  stated  in  chap,  xvii,  is  doubt- 
ful. It  was  the  act  of  a decadent  tribe,  an  atavism,  which 
led  in  the  end  to  the  most  dire  consequences.  The  effect 
on  Aztec  character  was  fatal.  From  bravery  they  passed  to 
bravery  plus  heartlessness.  It  is  generally  conceded  that 
the  lack  of  an  adequate  meat  supply  greatly  aggravates 
the  practice  of  cannibalism,  and  the  Spaniards  also  felt  this 
need.  They  killed  and  ate  the  native  dog  itzcuintli  until 
they  exterminated  him. 

This  feature  of  Aztec  religion  reacted  on  their  civil 
polity.  Instead  of  cementing  their  empire  by  a wise 

•Max  Muller,  Mythology;  also  Alfred  Rambaud,  History  of  Russia,  trans- 
lation of  Lenora  B.  Lang,  Vol.  I,  p.  40.  As  to  the  present  existence  of  human 
sacrifice  in  India,  cf.  Jastrow,  Religions  of  India,  p.  529,  and  Hunter,  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica , article,  “ India.” 

JAn  authentic  case  of  human  sacrifice  has  occurred  in  Mindanao,  P.  I.; 
Nation , “ notes,”  Nov.  12,  1908. 

3 Clavijero,  History  of  Mexico , Vol.  I,  p.  120. 


168 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


policy  of  organized  assimilation,  which  the  Romans,  of  all 
people,  best  understood,  they  conquered  for  the  sake  of 
fighting,  for  spoliation,  and  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
victims  for  their  abominable  sacrifices.  Thus  when  the 
final  crisis  came  their  ill-organized  state  was  resolved  into 
its  discordant  elements,  their  allies  became  their  enemies, 
and  the  only  Indian  state  in  North  America  became  a thing 
of  the  past. 

The  Aztecs  threw  away  the  greatest  opportunity  ever 
offered  to  a people  to  found  a new  and  magnificent  empire 
on  a virgin  continent.  But  if  we  believe  in  fate  then  fate 
so  willed  it.  The  Aryan  brothers  of  the  Aztecs,  from 
Europe,  equaled  them  in  courage  and  excelled  them  in 
knowledge.  The  civilized  Aryan  of  Europe  had  utilized 
gunpowder  and  learned  how  to  shoot. 

Nakua  disposition  and  courage. — All  writers  appear 
to  agree  that  the  Toltecs  possessed  the  highest  civilization 
existing  among  the  Nahuatlaca.  They  were  not  addicted 
to  cannibalism  and  human  sacrifice,  so  far  as  is  known. 
Clavijero  says  of  the  Chichimecs:  “With  respect  to  their 
customs,  they  were  certainly  less  displeasing  and  less  rude 
than  those  to  which  the  genius  of  a nation  of  hunters  gives 
birth.”1  They  worshiped  the  sun.  Their  life  was  simple, 
they  lived  on  game,  fruits,  and  roots. 

The  Aztecs  certainly  equaled  the  Greeks  in  bravery,2 
but  they  have  been  accused  of  deceit  and  treachery. 
By  whom?  By  Christians  who  wreaked  a horrible  ven- 
geance on  the  Tlascalan  envoys;  who  burned  Chimalpo- 
poca  at  the  stake;  who  pledged  protection  to  Cauhtemoctzin 
and  then  hanged  him;  who  resorted  to  trickery  to  get 
Montezuma  into  their  power  and  then  subjected  him  to 

1 Clavijero,  History  of  Mexico , Vol.  I,  p.  120. 

2 See  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  As  to  Certain  Reputed  Heroes. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


169 


a bitter  and  unmerited  humiliation;  who  won  victory  by 
the  aid  of  Indian  allies  and  then  treated  those  allies  no 
better  than  they  treated  the  vanquished  Aztecs.  At  times 
the  simplicity  and  dignity  of  Aztec  character  stands  side 
by  side  with  that  of  the  Greeks  in  their  best  days. 
Instance  the  death  of  Tlacahuepantzin,  son  of  Axayacatl. 
Chimalpaliin  says  simply : “Mo-yaomiquillito  Huexotzinco 
yn  Tlacahuepantzin.”1  He  died  in  war  at  Huexotzinco. 
This  simplicity  of  statement  regarding  the  death  of  a 
prince  is  paralleled  only  by  the  Greek  memorial  tablets  in 
the  cemetery  at  Athens,  “he  died  at  Syracuse.”  How 
brief  is  martial  glory! 

The  Tlascalans,  on  the  other  hand,  rivaled  the  Aztecs 
in  courage  and  ferocity.2  But  the  Aztecs  were  distinc- 
tively the  warriors  of  Anahuac.  I have  before  compared 
them  with  the  Greeks  of  Homer’s  time.  They  cut  a large 
figure  in  their  day.  They  gave  twenty -seven  chieftains  to 
the  world  from  Uitzilton,  born  1087  A.  d.,  to  Nanacaci- 
pactli,  the  last  Aztec  governor  of  Tenochtitlan  under  the 
Spandards,  died  1565  a.  d.3 

Influence  of  superstition  on  the  conquest. — There  was 
a current  belief  among  the  Nahua  at  the  time  of  the  con- 
quest that  the  “end  of  the  world,”  that  is,  of  the  present 
order  of  things,  was  approaching.  Quetzalcoatl,  “the 
Fair  God”  (white),  had  been  banished  from  the  country 
centuries  before,  or  rather  got  rid  of  by  his  rival  Tezcatl- 
ipoca  under  false  pretenses.  There  was  a tradition  that 
he  would  return  (with  white  men?)  to  reform  his  people 
and  restore  a better  condition  of  society.  The  Mexicans 
sent  a delegation  to  interview  Cortez  soon  after  his  landing. 

1 Chimalpahin,  Annals , Seventh  Relation,  year  1495. 

2 Without  his  Tlascalan  allies  Cortez  could  never  have  succeeded.  Fatuous 
people  who  prepared  their  own  destruction ! 

3 Chimalpahin,  Annals , Seventh  Relation,  year,  1565. 


170 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Their  report  was:  “7u  aquin  oquigaco  in  teotl  tonantiz , 
iotatiz."  He  who  comes  (has  just  come)  is  a god,  our 
Mother,  our  Father.  There  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  the 
conviction  that  a long-standing  prophecy  was  about  to  be 
fulfilled  greatly  facilitated  the  work  of  conquest  by  extin- 
guishing hope,  which  gave  way  to  a dire  fatalism.1 

It  may  be  noted  finally  as  a very  remarkable  fact  that 
the  followers  of  Zoroaster  believed  that  this  regeneration 
of  the  world  would  take  place  3,000  years  after  Zoroaster. 
If  we  accept  the  date  1500  b.  c.  (some  say  660  to  800 
B.  c. ) as  the  beginning  of  the  Zoroastrian  era,  then  1520  A.  D. , 
the  date  of  the  conquest,  completes  3,000  years  with  suf- 
ficient accuracy.  Lest  this  paragraph  provoke  a smile  I 
will  ask  the  reader  to  consider  carefully  and  weigh  well 
the  entire  case  as  made  out  in  this  book  from  first  to  last. 
He  only  is  a competent  judge  who  decides  after  he  has 
weighed  all  the  facts.  Any  other  judgment  is  miscalled. 
Its  proper  name  is  prejudice. 

1 Montezuma  consulted  the  king  of  Tezcuco  concerning  the  Tetzauitl  (p.  117). 
Montezuma,  who  had  been  a priest  and  was  naturally  of  a gloomy  disposition, 
believed  it  to  be  a dire  omen.  The  Tezcucau  was  inclined  to  laugh  at  it,  so  they 
cast  lots  to  see  whose  opinion  should  prevail  and  Tezcuco  won  1 Alea  jacta  ett! 


AUTHORITIES  CONSULTED 


Other  references  are  made  in  the  footnotes. 

Dictionaries 

Spanish- Nauatl,  Nauat l- Spanish,  by  Alonzo  de  Molina. 
Mexico,  1555,  1571.  Reprint,  Leipzig:  Teubner,  1890. 

Nauatl-French,  by  R6mi  Sim6on.  Quarto,  898  pp.  Paris, 
1875. 

Vocabulary , Mexican- Spanish- French  and  Dialogues , by 
Pedro  de  Arenas.  72  pp.  Paris,  1862. 

Vocabulario,  Nauatl- Spanish,  by  Cecilio  A . Robelo.  Gram- 
matical explanations.  Cuernavaca,  1869. 

English-Otchipwe,  Otchipwe- English,  by  Friedrich  Baraga. 
Montreal. 

Algonquin- French,  by  J.  A.  Cuoq.  Montreal. 

Spanish-Tupi,  Tupi-Spanish,  by  Ruiz  de  Montoya.  1639 
censor.  Rio  de  Janiero,  1876. 

Quichua- English,  English- Quichua,  by  Clements  R.  Mark- 
ham. London,  1864. 

English-Micmac,  by  Rev.  Silas  Tertius  Rand.  Halifax,  1888. 

Dakota- English,  by  L.  R.  Riggs.  Includes  grammar. 
Smithsonian. 

Kalispel-English,  English- Kalispel  (Selish),  by  Joseph 
Giorda. 

Otomi-Spanish,  by  Luis  de  Neve  y Molina.  About  3,000 
words. 

Indians  of  N.  W.  America,  Hale.  Vocabularies  in  transac- 
tions of  American  Ethnological  Society,  1848. 

Maya-Spanish,  by  Juan  Pio  Perez.  Edited  by  Eligio 
Ancona.  Merida,  Yucatan. 

Mosquito  Vocabulary,  by  I.  Cotheal.  In  Transactions  of 
American  Ethnological  Society,  1848. 

Assyrian- English,  by  Edwin  Norris.  3 vols.,  Vol.  IV  not 
published.  London,  1868. 

Chinese- English  Vocabulary , by  S.  W.  Williams.  Char- 
acters and  Romanized.  Macao,  1844. 

171 


172 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


The  Awabakal  Vocabulary  and  others,  in  “Australian  Lan- 
guages.” Edited  by  John  Fraser.  Sydney,  N.  S.  W.:  Govt. 
Printer,  1892. 

Deutsch-  Ungarisches,  Ungarisch- Deutsches  Worterbuch. 
2 vols.  Pesten,  1827. 

English-Hungarian,  Hungarian- English , by  Franz  de 
Paula  Bizonfy.  Budapest:  Franklin  Farsulat,  1878. 

Turc-Frangais , Frangais-Turc , par  Portin  Hindoglu. 
Vienna,  1838. 

Vocabulary  of  Shoshonay , or  Snake  Dialect , by  Joseph 
A.  Gebow.  Green  River  City,  Wyoming:  Freeman  & Bros.,  1868. 

Vocabulary  of  Clallam  and  Lummi,  by  George  Gibbs. 
New  York:  Cramoisey  Press,  1863. 

Natick- English , English-Natick,  by  James  Hammond 
Trumbull.  Smithsonian  Institution,  1903. 

Piikhto , Pushto  (Afghan),  by  Captain  H.  G.  Raverty. 
(Romanized.)  London:  Longmans,  Green,  1860. 

Hindustani- English,  English- Hindustani,  by  Duncan 
Forbes.  London:  W.  H.  Allen  & Co.,  1866. 

Sanskrit- English,  Williams,  1872. 

Grammars 

Idioma-Nahuatl,  6 Lengua  Mexicano,  by  Faustino  Chimal- 
popoca  (Galicia)  with  dialogues,  Spanish.  Mexico,  1869. 

Lenguas  Indigenas  de  Mexico,  by  Francisco  Pimentel;  in- 
cludes sketches  of  the  different  languages  of  Mexico  with  brief 
Grammar,  Selections,  etc.  2 vols.,  1862-79. 

Tupi-Guarani,  “Arte,”  by  Ruiz  de  Montoya,  bound  with 
dictionary. 

Chippewa,  by  Friedrich  Baraga.  Bound  with  dictionary. 
Cherokee,  by  S.  A.  Worcester.  Sketch,  in  Schoolcraft’s 
Indians  of  North  America. 

Quichua,  by  Clements  R.  Markham.  Sketch,  bound  with 
dictionary. 

Choctaw,  by  Cyrus  Byington,  edited  by  D.  G.  Brinton. 
Grammaire  de  la  langue  QuicM,  by  Flores,  translated  into 
French  by  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg. 

Sanskrit  Grammar  for  Beginners,  by  Friedrich  Max  Muller. 
Devanagari  and  Roman  letters.  Oxford. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


173 


A Sanskrit  Grammar , by  William  Dwight  Whitney,  Yale. 
Boston:  Ginn  & Co.,  1896. 

Easy  Lessons  in  Assyrian,  by  L.  W.  King.  Grammar, 
Reading,  and  Vocabulary.  Cuneiform  characters,  English 
interlinear. 

Assyrian  Grammar , by  Friedrich  Delitzsch,  translated  into 
English  by  R.  L.  Kennedy,  1889. 

Assyrian  Grammar,  by  A.  H.  Sayce.  London:  Trubner  & 
Co.,  1872. 

Assyrian  Manual,  by  D.  G.  Lyon. 

Awabakal  and  Other  Grammars  in  “ Australian  Languages,” 
edited  by  John  Fraser.  Sidney:  Govt.  Printer,  1892. 

Handbook  of  Colloquial  Japanese,  by  Basil  H.  Chamber- 
lain.  Romanized  vocabulary,  bound  with  Manual.  London: 
Sampson.  Low,  Marston  & Co.,  1898. 

Japanese  Grammar,  by  W.  G.  Ashton.  Romanized. 

Manual  of  Colloquial  Arabic,  by  Anton  Tien.  English- 
Arabic,  Romanized  vocabulary. 

Arabic  Interpreter,  by  Gabriel  Sacroug.  Romanized. 
Cairo,  1874. 

Arte  (grammar),  Mexican  or  Nahuatl,  by  Andr6  de  Olmos, 
abt.  1547.  Spanish,  edited  by  R6mi  Simeon.  Paris,  1875. 

Mexican  or  Nahuatl,  by  R6mi  Simeon.  French,  bound  with 
dictionary.  Paris,  1875. 

Anglo-Saxon  Elementary  Gh'ammar,  Reader,  and  Vocab- 
ulary, by  Stephen  H.  Carpenter.  Boston:  Ginn  & Co.,  1896. 

Chinese  Grammar  and  Chrestomathy,  by  James  Summers. 
Oxford,  1863. 

Ollendorf  Method,  English-Chinese,  by  J.  C.  Rudy.  2 vols. 

A Mandarin  Grammar,  by  Joseph  Edkins.  Shanghai,  1864. 

An  Ioway  Grammar  (language  of  the  Ioway,  Otoe,  and 
Missouri  Indians),  by  Rev.  Wm.  Hamilton  and  Rev.  S.  M.  Irvin, 
Presbyterian  B.  F.  M.  Ioway  and  Sac  Mission  Press,  1848. 

Simplified  Hungarian  Grammar,  by  Ignatius  Singer. 
London:  Trubner  & Co.,  1882. 

Lithuanian — Essay  on  the  Buividz6  Dialect,  by  R.  Gauthiot. 
Paris:  Emile  Bouillon,  1903. 

Australian  Languages,  Grammars  and  Vocabularies,  by 
John  Fraser.  Sydney,  N.  S.  W.,  1892. 


174 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Pacific  Coast  ( Indian ) Languages  (extended  sketch  in 
Bancroft,  Native  Races  of  Pacific  Coast. 

A Reading  Book  of  the  Turkish  Language , with  Grammar 
and  Vocabulary,  by  Wm.  Burckhardt.  London:  Barker,  1854. 

Grammar  of  the  Khassi , Sub-Himalayan,  by  H.  Roberts. 
London:  Keegan,  Paul,  Trench,  Triibner  & Co.,  1891. 

The  Hebrew  Student’s  Manual , Grammar  Readings  and 
Lexicon.  Gram,  by  S.  Prideaux  Tregelles.  London:  Samuel 
Bagster  & Sons. 

Panjdbi  Grammar,  by  W.  St.  Clair  Tisdall.  London: 
Triibner  & Co.,  1889. 

Hindustani  Grammar,  Sketch  with  Persian  and  Arabic,  by 
E.  H.  Palmer.  London:  Triibner  & Co. 

Pali  Grammar,  by  Eduard  Miiller.  London:  Triibner  <fe 
Co.,  1884. 

Grammatica  Linguae  Selicae,  auctore,  P.  Gregorio  Men- 
garini  (Flathead  Gram.).  Neo  Eboraci:  Cramoisey  Press,  1861. 

Grundriss  der  vergleichenden  Grammatik  der  Indo- 
germanischen  Sprachen,  von  Karl  Brugmann.  5 vols.;  Index 
1 vol.  Strasburg:  Karl  J.  Triibner,  1893. 

A Grammar  of  the  Cree  Language,  with  an  Analysis  of  the 
Chippeway,  by  Joseph  Howse.  London:  J.  G.  F.  and  J. 
Rivington,  1844. 

General  Linguistics 

Indo-Iranian  Phonology,  by  Louis  H.  Gray.  New  York: 
Columbia  University  Press,  1902. 

Language  in  General — its  Philosophy,  by  J.  W.  Powell, 
Introduction  to  Smithsonian  Report,  1898-99. 

Comparative  Vocabulary,  many  languages,  common  w’ords 
only,  by  Robert  Ellis. 

Comparative  Grammar,  by  Francis  Bopp.  2 vols.,  Indo- 
European. 

History  of  Language,  by  Henry  Sweet.  London:  Dent  & 
Co.,  1900. 

Modern  Languages  of  the  East  Indies , by  Robert  N.  Cust. 
London:  Triibner  & Co.,  1878. 

Chips  from  a German  Workshop,  by  Friedrich  Max  Miiller. 
Vol.  IV  Language.  New  York:  Scribner,  Armstrong  & Co., 
1876. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


175 


Lectures  upon  the  Assyrian  Language,  by  A.  H.  Sayce. 
London:  Samuel  Bagster  & Sons,  1877. 

Science  of  Language,  by  Max  Muller.  2 vols.  London: 
Longmans,  Green  & Co.,  1891. 

Principles  of  the  Structure  of  Language,  by  James  Byrne. 
2 vols.  London:  Trubner  & Co.,  1885. 

Tables  of  Phonetic  Changes,  by  Francis  A.  Wood.  Indo- 
European.  University  of  Chicago. 

Indo- Germanic  Roots  in  English,  by  August  Fick,  in 
International  Dictionary.  Springfield,  Mass.:  C.  and  G.  Mer- 
riam,  1900. 

The  Origin  and  Authenticity  of  the  Arian  Family  of 
Languages,  by  Dhanjibhai  Frarnji.  Bombay,  Year  of  Zoroaster, 
2251,  a.  d.  1861. 

Mexican  in  Aryan  Phonology,  by  T.  S.  Denison.  Chicago, 

1907. 

Origines  Ariacae,  by  Karl  von  Penka.  Wien  und  Teschen: 
Karl,  Prochaska,  1883. 

Aryan  Phonology  (Glottologia  Aria  Recentissima),  by 
Domenico  Pezzi,  translated  into  English  by  E.  S.  Roberts. 
London:  Trubner  & Co.,  1879. 

Literary 

Nauatl  Poetry,  by  Daniel  J.  Brinton.  Text,  Nauatl- 
English. 

Rig-Veda  Americana,  by  Daniel  J.  Brinton.  Text,  Nauatl- 
English. 

Ollantai,  a Peruvian  tragedy  in  verse,  edited  by  Gavino 
Pacheco  Zegarra,  with  copious  notes  on  grammar  and  history. 
Parallel,  Quichua-French. 

Gospel  of  Luke.  Mexican  text.  Methodist  Episcopal  Print, 
Mexico,  1889. 

Catechism,  Tupi-Spanish,  by  Ruiz  de  Montoya.  2 vols. 

“ The  Old  Man,”  Eleventh  Ode  of  Anacreon,  by  F.  Pimentel, 
in  Lenguas  Indigenas  de  Mexico,  Otomi-Spanish,  interlinear. 

Address  of  a Father  to  His  Son.  Mexican  text,  in 
Olmos’  Grammar,  Spanish  annotation. 

Annals  (of  the  Aztecs),  by  Chimalpahin  Quauhtlehuanitzin. 
Parallel,  Nauatl-French.  Edited  by  ROni  Sim6on.  Paris,  1875. 


176 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Los  Reyes , The  Kings.  Nahuatl  text,  religious  play.  Tlatel- 
olco,  1607.  MS.  *P.  379,  Bibliotheca  Publica,  Chicago. 

Gospel  of  Luke  in  Awabakal,  an  Australian  Dialect. 

Sanskrit  Reader , by  Charles  Rockwell  Lanman.  Selections 
from  Nala,  Rig-Veda,  etc.  Vocabulary  Romanized,  Notes. 
Boston:  Ginn  & Co.,  1888. 

A Guide  to  the  Old  Persian  Inscriptions , by  Herbert  Cush- 
ing Tolman.  Brief  grammar  with  vocabulary  and  text,  Roman- 
ized. American  Book  Co. 

Zuhi.  Texts  with  interlinear  English,  Stevenson  (see  under 
“Mythology”). 

Historical 

Historia  de  las  Cosas  de  la  Nueva  Espaha , by  Bernardino  de 
Sahagun.  Published  by  order  of  Mexican  Congress,  3 vols. 

Manners , Customs,  and  Conditions  of  the  North  American 
Indians,  by  George  Catlin.  2 vols.,  profusely  illustrated. 

An  Inglorious  Columbus,  by  E.  P.  Vining.  Reputed  Dis- 
covery of  America  by  Chinese  in  sixth  century  a.  d.  Favorable. 
D.  Appleton  & Co.,  1890. 

History  of  Mexico,  by  Francesco  Saverio  Clavijero,  trans- 
lated by  Charles  Cullen.  3 vols.,  illustrated.  Richmond,  Va.: 
Wm.  Prichard,  1806. 

America  before  Columbus,  by  B.  P.  de  Roo.  2 vols.,  Phila- 
delphia: Lippincott,  1900. 

Anahuac,  or  Mexico  and  the  Mexicans,  Ancient  and  Modern, 
by  Edward  B.  Tylor.  London,  1861. 

The  Five  Great  Monarchies  of  the  Ancient  World,  by  George 
Rawlinson.  Much  matter  on  language,  mythology,  etc. 

Bibliography  of  Pre-Columbian  Discoveries,  by  Paul  Bar- 
ron Watson.  Appendix  to  America  Not  Discovered  by  Colum- 
bus, by  Rasmus  B.  Anderson.  Chicago:  S.  C.  Griggs  & Co.,  1891. 

Conquest  of  Mexico,  by  Wm.  H.  Prescott.  3 vols. 

History  of  India,  by  Hon.  Mountstuart  Elphinstone,  2 vols. 
London:  John  Murray,  1843. 

The  Hittites  and  Their  Language,  by  C.  R.  Conder.  Lon- 
don: Wm.  Blackwood  & Sons,  1898. 

The  Discovery  of  America,  by  John  Fiske.  2 vols.  Boston: 
Houghton,  Mifflin  & Co.,  1892. 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


177 


Persia,  Past  and  Present,  by  A.  V.  Williams  Jackson.  New 
York:  The  Macmillan  Co.,  1906. 

Native  Races  of  the  Pacific  Coast,  by  Hubert  H.  Bancroft. 
5 vols.  San  Francisco:  A.  L.  Bancroft  & Co.,  1883. 

Geographical 

The  Geography  of  Strabo,  translated  into  English  by  H.  C. 
Hamilton  and  W.  Falconer.  3 vols.  Vol.  Ill,  India,  Persia. 
Bohn’s  Library. 

Geography  of  Mexican  Languages,  with  colored  map.  Pub- 
lished by  Government  of  Mexico,  1864. 

Nombres  Geograficos  de  Mexico,  Jeroglificos,  par  el  Dr. 
Antonio  de  Penafil. 

Codice  de  Mendoza  from  Kingsborough’s  Mexican  Antiqui- 
ties. Mexico:  Oficina  de  la  Secrataria  de  Fomento,  1885. 

Transactions  Wisconsin  Academy  of  Sciences,  Arts,  and 
Letters,  Place  Names.  Vol.  XIV,  1903. 

Damn  of  Modern  Geography,  by  C.  Raymond  Beazley. 
3 vols.  London:  John  Murray,  1897. 

A History  of  Ancient  Geography,  by  A.  F.  Tozer.  Cam- 
bridge University  Press,  1897. 

Nomina  Geographica,  Sprach  und  Sprach-Erklarung  von 
42,000  geographischen  Namen  alter  Erdraume,  von  Dr.  J.  J. 
Egli.  Derivations.  Leipzig:  Friedrich  Brandstetter,  1893. 

Shores  of  Lake  Aral,  by  Herbert  Wood.  Maps.  London: 
Smith.  Elder  & Co.,  1876. 

Travels  in  Central  Asia,  by  Arminius  Vamb^ry,  with  map 
and  illustrations.  New  York:  Harper  & Bros.,  1865. 

Mythology,  Folk-lore 

Contributions  to  the  Science  of  Mythology,  by  F.  Max  Mul- 
ler. 2 vols.  London:  Longmans,  Green  & Co.,  1897. 

Lost  Histories  of  America,  by  W.  S.  Brackett.  London: 
Triibner  & Co.,  1883. 

Myths  of  the  New  World,  by  Daniel  G.  Brinton.  Leypoldt  & 
Holt,  1868. 

Myths  and  Myth  Makers,  by  John  Fiske.  Boston:  James  R. 
Osgood  & Co.,  1872. 


178 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Cyclopedia  of  Superst  itions,  Folk-Lore , and  Occult  Sciences. 
3 vols.  Chicago  and  Milwaukee:  J.  H.  Yewdale  & Sons. 

The  Zuhi  Indians,  their  Mythology,  Fraternities,  and  Cere- 
monies, by  Matilda  Coxe  Stevenson.  Illustrated,  colored  plates, 
631  pp.  Smithsonian  Report,  1901-2. 

Archaeology 

The  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Monuments,  by  A.  H.  Sayce. 

Central  American  Hieroglyphic  Writing,  by  Cyrus  Thomas. 
With  plates.  Smithsonian  bulletin,  1903. 

The  Old  Indian  Settlements  and  Architectural  Structures 
in  Northern  Central  America,  by  Dr.  Carl  Sapper.  With  plans. 
Smithsonian  Bulletin,  1895. 

Researches  Concerning  the  Institutions  and  Monuments  of 
the  Ancient  Inhabitants  of  America,  by  Alexander  von  Hum- 
boldt, translated  into  English  by  Helen  and  Maria  Williams. 
2 vols.  Illustrated.  London,  1814. 

Gesammelte  Abhandlung  zur  Amerikanischen  Sprach- 
und  Alterthums  Kunde,  von  Edward  Seler.  2 vols.  Profusely 
illustrated  with  Kingsborough  and  Boturini  reproductions.  Ber- 
lin: A.  Ascher  & Co.,  1902. 

Asiatic  Affinities  of  the  Old  Italians,  by  Robert  Ellis.  Lon- 
don: Triibner  & Co.,  1870. 

Prehistoric  Antiquities  of  the  Aryan  Peoples,  by  Dr.  0. 
Schrader,  translation  of  Frank  B.  Jevons.  Comparative  philol- 
ogy. London:  Charles  Griffin  & Co.,  1890. 

Das  Land  des  Inca,  von  Rudolph  Falb.  Origin  of  speech, 
first  conceptions  of  gods,  extremely  technical  and  curious.  Leip- 
zig: Verlagbuchhandlung  von  J.  J.  Weber,  1883. 

Antiquities  of  Mexico,  by  Viscount  Kingsborough.  Lav- 
ishly illustrated,  plates  in  colors.  9 vols.,  elephant  folio.  Lon- 
don: Robert  Havell,  1831.  For  description  of  this  great  work, 
see  Prescott,  Conquest  of  Mexico,  Vol.  I,  p.  130,  note. 

Teotihuacan  6 la  Ciudad  Sagrada  de  los  Toltecas,  par 
Leopoldo  Batres.  Monografia  de  Arqueologia  Mexicana,  plans, 
illustrations,  colored  plates.  Mexico,  1889. 

Same  Subject,  University  of  Chicago  Bulletin,  No.  1, 
Anthropology,  by  Frederick  Starr,  1894. 

Mexican  and  Central  American  Antiquities  and  History 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


179 


(Calendar,  Paintings,  Picture  Writing,  Mythology).  Twenty- 
four  papers:  Seler,  Forstmaim,  Schellkas,  Sapper,  Dieseldorf, 
and  others  Translated  into  English  by  Charles  P.  Bowditch. 
Illustrated.  Bui.  28,  Smithsonian,  1991. 

The  Cradle  of  the  Aryans , by  Gerald  H.  Rendall;  good 
r6sum6  in  brief  space.  London:  Macmillan  & Co.,  1889. 

Mission  Scientifique  en  Perse , by  Jacques  De  Morgan. 
5 vols.,  illustrated,  plans,  maps,  comprehensive  and  scholarly; 
Vol.  IV,  Archaeology;  Vol.  V,  Linguistics,  chiefly  Kurdish. 
Paris:  Ernest  Leroux,  1894. 

Special  Articles 

Primitive  Home  of  the  Aryans , by  Archibald  H.  Sayce. 
Essay,  Contemporary  Review , 1889,  Smithsonian,  1890. 

Origine  Asiatique  des  Esquimaux , par  Emile  Petitot. 
Rouen:  Imprimerie,  De  Esperance  Gagniard,  1890. 

Recherches , philologiques  et  historiques  sur  la  langue 
Quichua  de  Perou , par  Onffroy  de  Tlioron.  “ Bibliotheca 
Ludovigi  Lugiani  Bonaparte,”  Clipping  brochure  in  Newberry 
Library. 

Transactions  American  Philological  Association,  “Tupi 
Language,”  by  C.  F.  Hart,  1872. 

Transactions  Ninth  International  Congress  of  Orientalists, 
Vol.  II,  1893.  “Research  in  Chinese,”  “Evolution  of  Consonants,” 
by  Joseph  Edkins;  also  “Accadian  Affinities  of  Chinese,”  by 
C.  J.  Ball. 

Report  of  Peabody  Museum,  1876-79.  Adolf  F.  Bandelier 
on  “Antiquities  and  Land  Tenure  of  the  Mexicans.” 

The  Jesuits  in  North  America,  by  Francis  Parkman. 
Introduction  is  a sketch  of  St.  Lawrence  Indians.  Boston: 
Houghton,  Mifflin  & Co. 

Sociology,  Ethnology 

Indians  of  North  America,  by  Henry  Schoolcraft. 
Languages  and  Customs,  2 vols.,  illustrated,  much  matter  on 
languages.  Philadelphia,  Lippincott. 

Ethnology,  by  A.  H.  Keane.  Cambridge  University  Press, 
1896. 


180 


THE  PBIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Evolution  of  the  Aryan , by  Rudolph  von  Ihering,  translated 
into  English  by  A.  Drucker,  indispensable  on  the  Aryan  question. 
New  York:  Henry  Holt  & Co.,  1897. 

What  the  White  Race  May  Learn  from  the  Indian , by 
George  Wharton  James.  Chicago:  Forbes  & Co.,  1908. 

Les  Aryens  an  Nord  et  au  Sud  de  L’Indou  Kouch,  par 
Charles  de  Ujfalvy,  Map.  Paris:  G.  Masson,  6diteur,  1896 

Primitive  Culture , by  Edward  B.  Tylor.  2 vols.  New  York: 
Henry  Holt  & Co.,  1876. 

Chaldean  Magic , its  Origin  and  Development,  by  Francois 
Lenormant.  Chapter  on  “Accadian.”  London:  Samuel  Bagster 
& Sons. 

The  Story  of  Vedic  India,  by  Zenaide  Ragozin.  Illustrated. 
New  York:  G.  P.  Putnam  & Sons,  1895. 

Hindu  Manners,  Customs  and  Ceremonials,  by  J.  A.  Dubois, 
The  Clarendon  Press,  1899. 

Essays  of  an  Americanist,  by  Daniel  G.  Brin  ton.  Philadel- 
phia: Porter  & Coates,  1890. 

The  American  Race,  by  Daniel  G.  Brinton.  New  York: 
N.  D.  C.  Hodge,  1891. 

The  Hako,  a Pawnee  Ritual  by  Alice  C.  Fletcher.  Smith- 
sonian Institution,  1903. 

General  Ethnology.  — Works,  Titles,  Subjects,  Authors. 
American  Bureau  of  Ethnology,  20th  Annual  Report,  Smith- 
sonian, 1898-9. 

Art  and  Architectdre 

Ancient  Mexican  Art,  5 folio  vols.,  numerous  illustrations  in 
colors  and  in  black,  ornaments,  human  figures,  ruins,  pottery, 
etc.  (5th  vol.  text),  by  Antonio  Penafil.  Berlin:  A.  Asher  & 
Co.,  1890. 

MS  Mexicain  Post-Columbian  of  the  Biblioth^que  National, 
Florence.  Illustrated  in  colors,  chiefly  mythological  figures, 
oblong  octavo,  very  curious,  no  text.  Rome:  Pub.  Daneri,  1904. 

Codex  Maghabecchiano,  similar  to  the  above  in  print  and 
subjects. 

History  of  Architecture  in  all  Countries,  from  the  Earliest 
Times  to  the  Present  Day,  by  James  Fergusson.  2 vols.,  illus- 
trated. New  York:  Dodd,  Mead  & Co. 

Mexican  Antiquities,  by  Kingsborough,  see  “Archaeology.” 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


181 


Religious 

A History  of  the  Devil,  by  Paul  Cams.  Illustrated.  Chi- 
cago: Open  Court  Pub.  Co. 

Ten  Great  Religions,  by  James  Freeman  Clarke.  Boston: 
Houghton,  Mifflin  & Co.,  1886. 

Oriental  Religions , by  Samuel  Johnson.  Boston:  Hough- 
ton, Mifflin  & Co.,  1885. 

Zoroaster,  by  A.  V.  Williams  Jackson.  New  York:  The 
Macmillan  Co.,  1899. 

Short  Studies  in  the  Science  of  Comparative  Religions,  by 
J.  G.  R.  Forlong.  Illustrated.  London:  Bernard  Quaritch, 
1897. 

Religions  of  India,  by  A.  Barth.  London:  Keegan,  Paul, 
Trench,  Triibner  & Co.,  1891. 

The  Popular  Religion  and  Folk  Lore  of  Northern  India, 
by  W.  Crooke.  2 vols.,  illustrated.  London:  Archibald,  Con- 
stable & Co.,  1896. 

Religions  of  India , by  Morris  Jastrow,  Jr.  Boston:  Ginn 
& Co.,  1895. 

The  World’s  Religions,  by  G.  T.  Bettany.  2 vols.,  illustrated. 
London:  Ward,  Lock  & Co. 

Religion  in  Universal  History,  by  Grant  Showerman, 
American  Journal  of  Philology,  April- June,  1908. 

The  Religion  of  the  Veda,  by  Maurice  Bloomfield,  New 
York:  G.  P.  Putnam’s  Sons,  1908. 

Solomon  and  Solomonic  Literature,  by  Moncure  D.  Conway. 
Chicago:  Open  Court  Pub.  Co.,  1899. 


INDEX 


A 

Absolution,  158 
Accadian,  doubt  of,  19 
Accent,  99;  and  rhythm,  74 
Adverbs,  Mexican,  41 
Aesir,  god  land,  124, 130,  n. 

Age  of  Mexican,  59 
Agglutination,  colloquial,  78;  dis- 
cussed, 80 
Ahura  Mazda,  54 
Ainu,  Aryan,  88,  n.,  128,  n.,  150 
Altepell,  town,  118 
American  race,  origin,  10,  n. 
Anahuac,  112 
Analysis,  30 

Animal  sacrifice,  134;  horse,  161, 
167 

Animals,  names,  Aryan,  72,  n. 
Animate  and  inanimate,  gender, 
66 

Anshan,  140 

Ape,  Mexican  Sanskrit,  53 
Apple,  xocotl,  festival  of,  165 
Ark,  119 

Arrow,  tlacochtli,  127  and  n. 
Artemis,  5L 

Aryan,  color,  21,  118;  roots,  21, 
26;  habitat,  72,  n.;  name  for 
boat,  137,  n. 

Aspiration,  91 
Assimilation  of  sounds,  99 
Assyrian,  infinitive,  59;  pronouns, 
60;  “mekh,”  54 
Astrology,  159 
Augment,  59,  62 

Australian,  changes  of  names,  88 
Axayacatl,  the  Great,  108 


Aztec,  primal  curse,  54;  migra- 
tion to  Anahuac,  125;  histori- 
ans, 111;  books,  111;  bronze 
workers,  123;  money,  134;  fu- 
ture states,  156;  domestic  life, 
164;  ethics,  165;  government, 
166;  cannibalism,  166;  civil 
polity,  167;  priests,  166;  cour- 
age, 168;  fatalism,  170;  mar- 
riage, 159 

Aztlan-Chicomoztoc,  127;  syno- 
nyms of,  128,  n.,  129;  described, 
131;  “ten”  Aztlan  names,  135; 
painting  of,  143;  etymology,  144 
B 

Bactria,  140,  153,  154 
Bad  luck,  left  hand,  115;  mirror, 
50;  owl,  49,  50,  n. 

Baptism,  158 
Bel,  Baal,  118 

Bird  and  animal  attendants  of 
gods,  116 

Births,  Aztec,  159 
Bite,  root,  27 
Blood  sacrifice,  154 
Bog,  god,  116 
Bogy,  Bod,  27 

“Born  again,”  “twice  born,”  156 
Boturini,  130 

Bridle,  Mexican  word  for,  76 
Bronze,  144 

Buddhists  in  Mexico,  145,  n. 
Bull,  158;  see  Ox 
Burial,  Aztec,  160 
C 

Calendar,  Aztec,  101;  revised  by 
Toltecs,  139 


183 


184 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Calli,  house,  118;  in  New  Persian, 
149 

Calpolli,  cosmopolitan,  35 
Calvary,  Aryan,  141 
Cannibal,  in  Tupi,  38;  see  Aztec 
Case  signs,  57,  83 
Caspian  Sea,  142, 144 
Cauhtemoctzin,  death  of,  69, 168 
Cave-dwellers,  128,  n. 

Caves,  seven,  Chicomoztoc,  129, 
136;  in  religion,  153,  156 
Caxtolli,  fifteen,  derived,  103 
Ce,  one,  104 

Chichi,  as  root,  37, 39, n.;  seeChi 
chimecatl 

Chichimecs,  39,  n.;  as  “dogs,” 
124;  with  the  Chalcas,  128; 
expelled,  144;  naked,  157;  came 
to  Anahuac,  125, 133 
Chicomoztoc,  seven  caves,  129, 
136 

Chimalpahin  Quauhtlehuani- 
tzin,  born,  125;  Annals , 111; 
quoted,  58,  68, 125,  169 
Chimalpopoca,  author,  99,  100; 

chieftain  burned  at  stake,  168 
Chinese,  polysyllabic,  82;  syntax, 
82;  phonetic  decay,  83,  n.;  com- 
pared with  Tibetan,  83 
Chippewa  inflection,  84 
Cholula,  112 
Climate,  135 
Clipped  forms,  46 
“Cloth  country,”  Pantitlan,  145 
• Coalescing  pronouns,  60 
Coat  of  arms,  Mexican,  133 
Col , col  lar,  Ahcoluacan,  150 
Color  in  race  problem,  20,  118 
Compounds,  38 
Confessional,  158 
Conjugation,  62 
Connectives,  60 
Consonants,  law  of  change,  24 


Cow,  as  root,  22,  26,  164 
Culture  names,  144 
Cushites,  126 
Cree,  syntax,  79 
Cross,  pre  Christian,  158 

D 

Danis,  134,  n. 

Deities  common  to  Mexico  and 
Asia,  161 
Deluge,  118 
Dentals,  94 
Descent  into  hell,  156 
Desinences,  63 

Devil,  as  owl,  49;  worshiped,  152; 
Tezcatlipoca,  50;  described, 
51,  n. 

Dialects,  Mexican,  67,  99 
Dictionary,  new  comparative,  32 
Divine  brotherhood,  131 
Dog,  as  root  word,  27;  in  pho- 
nology, 27;  in  mythology,  53 
Dual  number,  106 

E 

Easter,  101,  n.;  Aztec,  154 
Economics  of  Aztecs,  166 
Eden,  Nahua,  131,  163;  Aryan, 
137 

Education,  Aztec,  165;  Indian, 
85,  n. 

Elam,  Aryan,  120 
Elbow,  molictli,  root,  29 
Endings,  Mexican,  39,  40,  41 
Ethics,  Nahua,  165  • 

Etiquette,  Nahua,  165 
Etruscan  towns,  149 
Expression,  power  of  in  primitive 
tongues,  75 

F 

“Fall”  of  man,  158 
Feather  pictures,  Aztec,  164 
Festivals,  Aztec,  165 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


185 


Finnish,  permanence  of,  87,  n. 
Fire,  kindling  in  Anahuac,  101; 

worship,  153 
Five,  “handgrasp,”  103 
Food  supply,  166 

G 

G with  v,  in  Mexican,  98;  be- 
comes j or  s,  99 
Galchas,  131  n. 

Gender,  Mexican,  29;  and  New 
Persian,  67 

Geographical  extension  of 
Nauatl,  112 

Geographical  names,  Mexico- 
Asia,  119,  150 

Giants,  133;  “age of  giants,”  137,  n. 
Glyphs,  Mexican,  115 
Grammatical  gender,  66 
Greek,  unassignable  words,  18,  n. 
Greek  verb,  mutations,  86,  n. 
Gutturals,  95 

H 

Hand  counting,  106 
Hanuman,  king  of  monkeys, 
116,  n. 

Hare,  Great,  51 

Hebrew  roots  in  Khassi,  88,  n. 

Hecate,  51 

Hell,  descent  into,  156 
Hermit  caves,  138 
High-priest,  Teohuateuctli,  121 
Hindu  Kush,  Aryans  in,  111,  112, 
113 

Home  land  of  Nahua,  163 
Homonyms,  17 
Honorifics,  12,  165 
Horse  calls,  89;  sacrifice,  161, 167 
House,  word  for.  Old  World  and 
New,  10;  see  Calli,  119 
Human  sacrifice,  152 
Humming  bird.  Ill,  116,  117 
Hungarian,  postpositions,  61 


I 

Immaculate  Conception,  157 
Immortality,  Aryan  belief,  157 
“In”  as  article,  65 
Incorporation,  77 
Indian  languages,  number  of,  16, 
n.;  power  of  expression,  75 
Individuality  of  languages,  71 
Indo-Iranian  phonetics,  100 
Indra,  as  Tlaloc,  30,  166 
Infinitive,  germ,  Mexican,  59 
Inflection,  72,  81 

Islands  in  Nahua  migration,  129, 
132,  113 

Izcalli,  or  itzcalli,  the  resurrec- 
tion, 151 

Iztacciuatl,  mountain,  59 

J 

Japanese  words,  dog,  52;  Yezo- 
jin,  152,  n.;  “earth  spiders,” 
121,  n.,  128,  n. 

K 

K and  t,  equivalents,  18,  n.,  88; 
“catur,”  89;  k equals  f,  95;  k 
equals  p,  /,  95 

Ka.  a root,  23;  sign  of  preterit,  62 
Kafiristan,  Aryan,  131 
Katur-Mabug,  Chedor-Lagomar, 
121 

Khassi,  81,  n. 

Kinship  of  languages,  what  con- 
stitutes, 11;  of  American,  21 
Kul,  clan,  36 

L 

L and  r,  11 
Labials,  97 

Languages,  vitality,  21, 60;  form- 
classification,  81,  number  in 
world,  71;  Old  World  and  New 
compared,  111,  n. 

Latin,  unassignable  words,  18,  n 


186 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


Learning,  of  Aztecs,  164 
“Left  hand”  superstition,  115 
Liaison,  Lithuanian  and  San- 
skrit, 61 

Lingua  rustica,  73 
Liztli,  41 

Loka  palA,  world  protectors,  162 
Lord's  Prayer  in  Mexican,  70 
Lost  letters,  92,  93 

M 

M,  »,  not  sounded,  97;  to  related 
to  b,  p,  98 

Magian,  derivation,  99 
Magic,  Aztec  tonalamatl,  159 
Man,  various  words  for,  88 
Manabozho,  the  Great  Hare,  116; 

in  Menominee,  116,  n.,  161,  162 
Manasowar,  holy  lake,  138 
Mandans,  as  Welsh,  122 
Marriage,  Aztec,  159 
Matlactli,  ten,  thirteen  forms  of 
expression,  105 

Maya,  language  and  culture,  111; 

inscriptions,  126 
Meanings,  importance  of,  24 
Merchant,  oztomecatl,  164  and 
n.  1 

Metztli,  see  Moon,  50 
Mexica,  later  name  of  Aztecs,  54; 

Mexica-Chichimeea,  133 
Mexican  language,  place  in 
Aryan  group,  18;  age,  59 
Mexico,  meaning  of  word,  54; 

Tenochtitlan,  55 
Mexitli,  Mexitl,  as  Ahura  Mazda, 
54;  see  Mexico 

Migration,  Nahua,  cause  of,  144,  n. 

Miracles,  158 

Mirror,  bad  luck,  50,  51 

Missionaries,  as  philologists,  3L 

Mithra,  rites  of,  156 

Molina,  Nauatl  lexicographer,  7 


Monkey,  52;  see  Quauh-chimalli 
and  Ozomatli;  geographical 
range,  146 

Monosyllabism,  82;  English,  73 
Monsters  or  giants,  133,  n. 
Montezuma,  168,  170,  n. 

Moon  and  west  wind,  116,  135; 
monarchs,  42,  n.;  gazelle  in, 
117;  Tartars  reverence,  117;  as 
Artemis,  51;  see  Metztli 
Mother  of  Ihe  gods,  162 
Myths,  moon  and  west  wind,  116, 
135;  Pandora,  116,  n. 

N 

Nahua  Eden,  131,  163;  courage, 
168 

Nauatl  language,  easily  misin- 
terpreted, 39,  n.,  50,  n.,  60 
Nebo,  118 

Nine,  Mexican  and  Sanskrit,  105 
Noah,  Mexican,  119,  150;  of 
Michoacan,  150 

Nonohualca,  tribe,  name  derived, 
136,  and  n. 

Nudity,  132,  157 

Numerals,  Mexican,  are  Aryan, 
102,  103,  104, 105 
Numeration,  Mexican,  101 
Numeration  and  cosmogony,  107 

O 

Olmos,  Nahuatl  grammarian,  97, 
n„  148 

Om,  sacred  syllable,  105,  137 
On,  Mexican  and  Saxon,  66 
Origin  of  American  race,  10,  n„  16 
Owl,  Mexican  devil,  49;  “bad 
luck”  bird,  49;  “luminous,” 
50,  n. 

Ox,  root,  29;  predicted  birth  of 
Zoroaster,  158 
Oxus,  136,  137,  133,  141 
Ozomatli,  divine  monkey,  53 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OF  AMERICA 


187 


P 

Painted  nose,  150 
Painting  representing  Aztlan, 
129,  132,  n.,  143 

“Pal”  and  “cully,”  36,  74,  n.; 

i pal  nemoani,  god,  118,  162 
Pamirs,  135 

Paindora,  Algonquin,  116,  n. 
Pantheon,  Mexican,  162,  n. 
Parable,  Woman  and  Lost  Coin, 
68 

Parsis,  160 
Passive  voice,  42 
Paynal,  man-god,  155 
Pedagogue,  telpuchtlato,  159 
Periods,  in  linguistic  develop- 
ment, 84 

Persistence  of  language,  87 
Phonetic  “sports,"”  89 
Phonetics:  changes,  24, 88;  decay, 
47;  Sanskrit-Tupi,58,n.;  world- 
wide, 96 

Photograph,  “bad  medicine,”  51 
Pixquitl,  harvest,  48 
Plural  formation,  Mexican,  66;  of 
numerals,  104 

Poetry  of  Nezahualcoyotl,  65 
Popocatepetl,  eruption,  58,  n. 
Poesessive,  English,  83;  Mex- 
ican, 38, 40, 60;  New  Persian,  60 
Postpositions,  43;  eastern  Aryan, 
61 

Pi  e Columbian  discoveries,  121 
Prepositive  object-pronoun,  56 
Priests,  Aztec,  166;  in  teocalli  of 
Mexico,  153,  n. 

Primal  curse  on  Aztecs,  131 
Pronunciation,  “continental,”  96 
Prophecies  of  birth  of  Zoroaster, 
158 

Pukhtu  language,  146 
Pyramids  of  Teotihuacan,  110; 
Cholula,  110 


Q 

Quauh-chimalli,  monkey,  52 
Quechcoatl,  rattlesnake,  47 
Queehtli,  the  neck,  47 
Quetzalcoatl,  word  derived,  37; 
contest  with  Tezcatlipoca,  156; 
taught  arts,  152 

Quinehuayan,  name  derived,  136, 
147 

Quotations,  Mexican,  68 
R 

Religion  of  the  Nahua,  152 
Repute  and  disrepute  of  words,  74 
Resurrection,  Izcalli,  154 
“Reverencial”  verb,  70,  n. 
Rhythm,  74 

Root,  what  is?  32;  onomatopoetic, 
33;  differentiation,  34;  value 
compared  with  termination,  34, 
n.;  kul  and  chichi  as,  36;  usual 
form,  26;  number  of,  34;  prim- 
itive, 34;  abolished,  34;  actu- 
ality of,  84;  did  igDorant 
recognize?  85;  strong  forms,  93 

S 

S,  z,  f,  Mexican,  100 
Sacrament,  155 

Sacred  books,  teoamoxtli,  126, 
and  n. 

Sacred  numbers,  seven,  139;  four, 
159 

Sahagun,  historian,  158  ff. 
Saltillo,  99 
Sardma,  dogs  of,  53 
Selish  verb,  81 

Serpent, of  Eden,  123,  n.;  worship 
of.  152 

Seven  in  magic,  139 
Sheep,  derived,  23 
Simeon,  editor  Mexican  books,  7, 
126 


188 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


Siva,  ciuatl,  117 
Skulls,  place  of,  141,  and  n.  3 
Slang,  endurance  of,  25;  “old 
rip,”  25 

Sound  shifts,  93 

Sounds,  forward  movement,  92; 

“eastern  and  western,”  95,  97 
“Speak,”  conjugated,  five  lan- 
guages, 85 

Spelling,  syllabic,  80;  Mexican, 
arbitrary,  100 

“Stations”  in  Nahua  migration, 
142 

Superstition  and  conquest  of 
Mexico,  169 
Swastika,  120,  n. 

Sweat,  Aryan  word,  28 
Syntax,  Mexican,  58;  ancient  and 
modern,  75;  synthetic  vs.  an- 
alytic, 84 

T 

Tajiks,  141;  154 
Te,  pronoun,  56,  62;  prefix,  65 
“Tecatl”  and  “catl,”  as  appella- 
tives, 148 

Tel,  terra,  tlalli,  46 
Tenochtitlan,  55;  see  Mexico 
Teocalli,  7;  of  Mexico,  153  n. 
Terminations,  value  in  compari- 
son, 34,  n.;  syntactical,  39; 
Mexican,  40;  lost  in  plurals 
and  compounds,  46 
Tetzauitl,  as  Uitzilopochtli,  117; 

derived,  117,  161,  170,  n. 
Tezcatlipoca,  50;  described,  51, 
n.;  contest  with  Quetzalcoatl, 
156 

Tezcoco,  Athens  of  Nahua  cul- 
ture, 109, 113 

Thought  forms  and  style,  67 
Ti,  affix,  wide  use  of,  82 
Tibetan,  phonetic  decay,  83 
Tla,  derived,  64 


Tlacatecolotl  “man  owl,”  49 
Tlacochcalca,  tribe,  126 
Tlaloc,  as  Indra,  30,  166 
Tlani,  homonym,  47 
Tlapallan  (Balkh),  139;  “old  red 
town,”  140,  n. 

Tlaptli,  ark,  119 

Tlascalans,  envoys,  168;  bravery, 
169 

Toltecs,  123;  came  to  Anahuac, 
125;  sacred  city  Teotihuacan, 
136, 140;  religion  of,  168;  char- 
acter, 168 

Transfer  meanings,  25;  see  Metz- 
tli,  50 

Trinity,  158 
Tula,  Tola,  130,  n.,  140 
Tupi,  “relatives”  and  “recipro- 
cals,” 57;  phonetic  changes, 
58,  n.;  word  for  cannibal,  38; 
numerals,  106 

Turanian  syntax,  44;  compared 
with  Mexican,  61 
Turkish  language,  80,  141 
Tzin,  honorific,  42 
Tzontli,  as  numeral,  48 

U 

Ualyolcatl,  kindred,  48 
Uemac,  Aztec  chief,  130,  149 
Uichachtecatl,  mount,  101,  n. 
Uitzilin,  see  Uitzilopochtli 
Uitzilopochtli  war  god,  114;  as 
Tetzauitl,  117 
Uitznauatl,  god,  162 
Unit  of  expression,  word  or  sen- 
tence? 34 

Unity  of  human  speech,  86 
Unleavened  bread,  155 
V 

V,  w,  parasitic,  27,  95;  equals  oo, 
97 

Verb,  Mexican,  conjugation,  62 


THE  PRIMITIVE  ARYANS  OP  AMERICA 


189 


Vicar  of  Uitzilopochtli,  155 
Vigesimal  numeration,  101, 134 
Vocalic  consonants,  96 
Vowels:  mutation,  22;  genesis, 
24;  sequence,  44;  discussion  of, 
93;  table  of  comparison,  94 
Vulcan,  162 

W 

Walled  places,  142 
Welsh  speaking  Indians,  121 
West,  in  Aztec  ceremonials,  128, 
n.,  159;  “behind,”  129,  n. 

West  wind,  moon  myth,  116, 135 
Winter  solstice  festival  to  Uitzil- 
opochtli, 155 

Witch,  Mexican  word,  117 
Wolf,  phonetic  changes,  44;  As- 
syrian, 45,  n. 


Words,  long,  34,  35;  clipped  in 
compounds,  38 

“World  px-otectors,”  eight,  162 

X 

X in  Mexican,  sound  of,  97 

Xauani,  Latin,  col,  48 

Xiquipilli,  “bag  full,”  103 

Y 

Yezidis  or  Izedis,  152,  n. 

Youalehecatl,  51;  see  Tezcatli- 
poca 

Z 

Zoroaster,  139;  field  of  labors, 
153;  prophecy  of  birth,  158; 
miracles  at  birth,  158 


DATE  DUE 

S' 

k 

1 

"i 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  U S A. 

